

mth 


lui\ 


H 


Si 


lilt* 




fi 


PiW®ii!!I!!| |i 








mm 


m 


,t ■» i * 








\ *■ 




j** i 

|J? 




I *5 t 


Ui 


i 






uu 








M*- 


iff 


n 


t. 


pi i < 

BJ t ffi if 


tllPuh;' 

r>j t 5 ? T : J O 


> l 


U 


i k 


i 


i rl 


ms) 






u 


mm 


ffrtMri 




KM 




' 3 1 . 


i 




rfw 


T •’ V I 1 


•> 




Hi 


mm 


u 


i Hi 




m 


v.\4iuaiiuu 


M 








* i IMIIH 














.. H * * * * 




\u 


i ■ 

t 










fl liHiijH itiii i 

HRli' 

“ig tfffMmi 

s *u j Miji 


» J- 






1 J 


li 


i f 


T } } l 

HH- 

4 r t i* ; A 




*11 






IMfi 


Mi 


Ri 


mm 




i 


Iff 


fi 




rsH 


!<*■$ 




■* ii 


ft 


tt 




.%* 


mil 


f 


Urn 


It! 


\n 




m 





























\ * 0 





V * 0 



° z 


^ V *- v 4 0 a 

* & -J 

A> 
<p <^v 


>%'*“' N> V **.,, % 

V.<^ :iS«‘ %,^y "' ^ 



O cS ** 



• S ^ 



,* ^ \*ms j? ^ 

4 . J«' , "jT.^ A & <* "<,,0 _£ V 

0 °' Ol^>* ' 0 ° AL£*, % /o'"' 

*, ■%.& ? jMmk'r % & » 

® <d Oft o 

_ . s o ** . J ."«ns”^ <jJV’ , 

V" 1 ’ 

%;, ^ :m\ V> 

° c$ ^ -* « *c 5 > ^ 

** <& %■ \^sm» •& 

" v A f 






<s7 1 "'' <§? 

v-6. rv s 


^ <1 




$ 


'« %, * v 0 
'fyuty o 


d o 



<H O* o 

V'-- / V'° • - . 

v %. <v .^yv % ^ ..w A v 

° *$= "V 

oV 'rf‘ > '■’^Mjsr J* ^ ^ -V 

6 * <*>"'•*'' r!r , . <* *■' *« '' A^ 

% c°\'l^ z %- C?V' 

C— /* o- ^ T^ k y? ^ 


°. cS ^ -* 

* # •%> % 





^ rS 


^ d< 


^ V ***<>/• ^ V * 




& ^ , 





































V ^ * 0 . 



V * Y * 0 z' 




z 'cP\V • - ^ A 

/ ^> s ^ : 

- ; ‘/'"-*V'"''/; i », v' 

' *C _ . V V >£> V V A. * 9 . 



.& *V *1 

^ G s> ^ - 


«* ^ o 

* • * 2 * ° 



W- * 


>A t A* 

:w,*- -<*,, 


^< 3 * l 

v'"»•< *«, %,' “ * 1 * v \ y 



O cS y>> ^ 

* r# ^ ” 




^ '** S ' ^ ^ A° ^ */ 

<6 ^0\ s s • * f & (Jr s s * * >• 

•^- - ’* < V ^ 

^ 0 * 


^ 0 ^ o SflfiQt *„ r$ 




^ o " <6 o. ' 

° z -iMk': ** **« 



^ v y 
</> "V 



' ,"W^>’ ,<& X 

' * * s S rC 5 ^ ^ ^ V 

^o< . ®*<^ * 



c cP 
■ <V$? •% 




\>' ^ 


„ ™„- / < 2 * \ v ^ , .. 
^ 0 • *■ * < y v * o y 0 * > * a* v 9x y o* x * 

%> s ^ *1 ^'+CK V tA*°, 

• 'W* -ijfe: %^ /^g^. 'W 

• -- 1 


*$ 





V %. .«. »• .e 


<* vV 

# ^ % 



^ ^V o* J 


-* r/ / < s % _aG . -V . 

/• * * ry s ^ ^ / ^O*' 

^ ^ Cr 


. V ,#' 



^ ^ 0 * x * A^ v „ ^6, y 0 * x * \V Q- 

\ n ^- : r ^££°o 


H ft 




















































































. 





























































GOD SOY E U E I G N 


a \ n 



F R E 



l 


OR THE DOCTRINE OF 


D i VI N E FO R EORDINATION 


AND 


MAN’S FREE AGENCY 


STATED, ILLUSTRATED, AND PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES. 






- V ftv 

;r 


BY N: LYRICE, D.D., 

I A TOR OF THE CENTRAL It’.ESBY I'ERIAX CHURCH 



CINCINN 

JOHN D. THORPE, NO. XII. 

1850. 




ATI: 

FOURTH STREET, 











Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by 
JOHN D. THORPE, 

In the Clerk’s Office of the Distiict Court for the District of Ohio. 


3-2 - *7 


JOHN D. THORl'E, PRINT- 









CONTENTS* 

PART I. 

DIVINE FOREORDINATION . 

CHAPTER I. 

P,| 

The doctrine of Divine foreordination proved 
to be Scriptural by its fruits, - -- -- -- - 9 

CHAPTER II. 

The doctrine of Divine foreordination stated 
and the Statement shown to be in accord¬ 
ance with the Scriptures, the Westminster 
Confession of Faith, and with standard Cal- 


vinistic writers, - -- -- -- -- -- — - 29 

CHAPTER III. 

The doctrine of Divine foreordination proved 
by the Word of God, - --*.52 

CHAPTER IV. 

Objections to the doctrine of Divine foreordi¬ 


nation answered, and the inconsistencies of 
Arminianism pointed out, - - - -.75 






.DOCTRip 01’ ELECTION'. 

CHAPTER I. 

Page. 

The doctrine of Election stated,.119 

CHAPTER II. 

Objections to the doctrine of Election stated, 
and the errors and inconsistencies of Armin- 


ianism exposed, — — ------- — -125 

CHAPTER III, 

The doctrine of Election proved by the Word 
of God,.162 


CHAPTER IV. 

Scriptural Argument continued, and the practi¬ 
cal importance of the doctrine shown, - - - 179 

CHAPTER V. 

The Scriptural Argument continued, ----- 194 
CHAPTER VI. 

Practical bearing of the whole doctrine of 
Divine foreordination, - ---212 












PREFACE. 


Happy would it be for the Church of Christ and for the 
world, if Christian ministers and Christian people could be 
contented to be disciples, —learners; if, conscious of their 
limited faculties, their ignorance of divine things, and their 
proneness to err through depravity and prejudice, they could 
be induced to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of him. The 
Church has been corrupted and cursed in almost every age 
by the undue confidence of men in their reasoning powers. 
They have undertaken to pronounce upon the reasonableness 
or unreasonableness of doctrines infinitely above their reason, 
which are necessarily matters of pure revelation. In their 
presumption they have sought to comprehend “the deep 
things of God,” and have interpreted the Scriptures, not 
according to their obvious meaning, but according to the 
decisions of their finite reason. 

On no subject have men affirmed and denied more boldly, 
than on that of Divine foreordination. Had the question been, 
as it ought to have been, simply concerning the obvious 
teaching of the Scriptures,—had men been content to inter¬ 
pret the language of Inspiration according to the acknowl- 
l* 





VI 


PREFACE. 


edged principles of interpretation, the faith of Christians 
might have been far more harmonious. But before turning 
to the word of God, they have filled their minds with objec¬ 
tions; and then they have exhausted their learning in at¬ 
tempting so to interpret the language of Scripture, as to 
avoid the difficulties they saw in its obvious meaning.— 
Strange that they who object to this mode of proceeding 
concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, should yet resort to 
it in determining the truth of the doctrine of Divine foreor¬ 
dination. For if we cannot comprehend the mode of God’s 
existence, because it is infinitely above us, for the same rea¬ 
son we cannot comprehend the counsels of infinite wisdom. 
No one has ever studied the works of Nature or the Book of 
Revelation without finding himself encompassed on every 
side by difficulties he could not solve. The philosopher is 
obliged to be satisfied with facts ; and the theologian must 
content himself with God’s declarations. The philosopher 
must not reject facts, because he cannot reconcile them with 
the perfections of God or the accountability of man; and 
the theologian must believe the plain teaching of God’s 
word, though he cannot solve the difficulties which seem to 
him to press upon it. 

It is necessary that the doctrine of Divine foreordination 
be frequently discussed, not only because it has important 
practical bearings, but because it has been and is more mis¬ 
represented and caricatured than almost any other doctrine 
of the Scriptures. The doctrines of Christianity are not 
mere abstractions, but great practical truths, designed and 
adapted, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, to mould 
the affections of the heart and to give a right direction to 


PREFACE. 


vii 

the conduct. Both the advocates and tin opponents of the 
doctrine ot Divine decrees agree in attributing to it most 
important practical tendencies. If the doctrine is true, those 
tendencies must be good; if false, we will acknowledge them 
to be evil. The subject, then, demands a fair and candid 
investigation. And if we do not greatly err, those who give 
it such an investigation, will find the doctrine abundantly 
sustained by the Scriptures, and not pressed w r ith any diffi¬ 
culty which should Aveaken our faith in it. Nay, they will 
see, that they must receive it; or, if consistent in rejecting 
it, they must reject some of the fundamental doctrines of 
Christianity. 

The following volume is designed clearly to state the doc¬ 
trine, as held by Calvinists, and to prove it true both by its 
fruits and by the. direct testimony of God's word. The first 
chapter exhibits very briefly the fruits of Calvinism, wffiere it 
is admitted to have prevailed; and in the following chapters 
the doctrine of Divine foreordination, in its two great 
branches, is clearly stated and defended. The author, how¬ 
ever, has not been disposed to act simply on the defensive. 
He has deemed it proper to enter into a careful examination 
of some of the most serious errors of the opposite system. 
Without entertaining any other than the kindest feelings 
toward those who differ from him, he has felt at liberty,— 
rather he has deemed it his duty,—freely to examine the 
claims of some of their doctrines. 

It is possible that the methods of stating and illustrating 
this important doctrine, adopted by the author, may strike 
forcibly the minds of some, and assist them in rightly under¬ 
standing it. If so, he will not have labored in A r ain. With 






Viii PREFACE. 

a sincere desire to contribute somewhat to the spread of 
sound doctrine, and thus to promote the glory of the Ke- 
deemer and the eternal happiness of men, he ventures, with 
prayer for the Divine blessing upon it, to throw before the 
Christian public this volume. Should it be lost amid the 
multitude of abler works, he will not be disposed to com¬ 
plain, but will rather rejoice, that the cause of truth and 
righteousness lias many advocates more competent than 
himself. 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


1»ART I. 


CHAPTER I. 

THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE FOREORDINATION PROVED TO BE 
SCRIPTURAL BY ITS FRUITS. 

Has God from eternity foreordained what¬ 
soever comes to pass? If he has, how is this 
doctrine consistent with the free agency and ac¬ 
countability of angels and men, and with the 
Divine perfection? These are important ques¬ 
tions, which, in the fear of God, and guided by 
his word, we propose briefly to examine. 

As represented by many of its opponents, the 
doctrine of Divine foreordination is, we admit, 
unscriptural, absurd and impious. It is repre¬ 
sented as making God the efficient author of all 
the moral feelings and acts of his rational crea¬ 
tures, as thus destroying their free agency, and 
as striking at the very foundations of morality. 
Are these representations of the doctrine cor- 



10 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

rect? There are two ways of obtaining a satis¬ 
factory answer to this question/viz: first, by 
inquiring what have been the fruits of this and 
its kindred doctrines, where they have prevailed; 
and, secondly, by distinctly stating the doctrine, 
and comparing it with the teachings of the word 
of God. We propose briefly to adopt both these 
methods. 

First What have been the fruits of the 
doctrine of Divine foreordination, where it 
has prevailed? This doctrine, let it be ob¬ 
served, stands not alone, but is an essential 
part of a system of doctrines which has been 
called Calvinistic, in distinction from a differ¬ 
ent system called Arminian. Now the princi¬ 
ple is admitted by all Christians, that there is 
an inseparable connection between religious 
truth and sound morality,—that the uniform 
effect of Scriptural truth, wherever it is sincere¬ 
ly embraced, is to lead to virtuous feelings and 
conduct. It is admitted, also, that the moral 
tendencies of religious error upon the charac¬ 
ter and conduct of men, are decidedly bad, and 
bad precisely in proportion to the greatness of 
the error. To the Jews, who, blinded by reli¬ 
gious error, had become slaves of sin, our Saviour 
said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. H 

shall make you free.”* And the inspired Paul 
triumphantly appealed to the fruits of his doc¬ 
trines, as exhibited in the lives of his con¬ 
verts, as the best evidence that they were from 
God. “Do we begin again to commend our¬ 
selves? or need we, as some others, epistles of 
commendation to you, or letters of commenda¬ 
tion from you? Ye are our epistle written "in 
our hearts, known and read of all men: Foras¬ 
much as ye are manifestly declared to be the 
epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not 
with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; 
not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the 
heart.”f The reflecting mind needs no more 
conclusive evidence of the falsity of the various 
systems of Paganism, of Deism, of Mahometan¬ 
ism, and of Popery, than that afforded by their 
corrupt fruits. Their effects upon the moral 
character of their zealous defenders, and upon 
the character of the communities where they 
have respectively prevailed, have ever been held 
up by Christians in contrast with the moral 
effects of Christianity, as conclusive evidence of 
the truth of the latter. We are prepared to try 
Calvinism, as it is called, by this admitted prin¬ 
ciple. If it is what its opposers represent it, its 


* John 8: 32. 


f 2 Corinthians 3: 1-3. 








12 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


effects upon the morals of those who have held 
and do hold it, must have been extremely bad. 
John Wesley said, that it makes “all preaching 
vain;” that “it directly tends to destroy that 
holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances 
of God;” that it “directly tends to destroy our 
zeal for good works;” that it lias “also a direct 
and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole 
Christian revelation;” that it represents our Sa¬ 
viour “as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, 
a man void of common sincerity;” that it “de¬ 
stroys all God’s attributes at once: it overturns 
both his justice, mercy and truth: yea, it repre¬ 
sents the most holy God as worse than the devil, 
as both more false, more cruel and more unjust,” 
as “an omnipresent, almighty tyrant.” “This,” 
says he, “is the blasphemy clearly contained in 
the horrible decree of predestination.”* This is 
a tolerably full epitome of the charges alleged 
against the doctrine of Divine foreordination. 
What must inevitably be the effects of a system 
of doctrine, of which this constitutes one of the 
most prominent features, upon the moral charac¬ 
ter of those who embrace it, and of those com¬ 
munities where it prevails? Immorality, of 


* Sermon on Free Grace. 




FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


13 


course, iu its various forms must prevail; good 
works must be wholly disregarded; infidelity 
must abound; and the people, like the Being 
whom they worship, must become as bad, as un¬ 
just, as cruel, as the devil, and even more so! 

Now let us turn from this picture, and inquire 
what have been the real fruits of Calvinism in 
all countries and in all ages. 

It will not be denied, that Augustine, bishop 
of Hippo, who lived in the latter part of the 
fourth and in the beginning of the fifth centu¬ 
ries, held the doctrine of Divine foreordination, 
and its kindred doctrines now called Calvinistic. 
That he was an eminently good, as well as great 
man, and that his labors and writings, more than 
those of any other man in the age in which he 
lived, contributed to the promotion of sound 
doctrine and the revival of true religion, no can¬ 
did man, acquainted with the history of the 
Church, will deny. In his day the Pelagian 
heresy arose, and threatened to spread its with¬ 
ering influence over the Church; “and to him 
indeed,” as the historian Mosheim says, “is prin¬ 
cipally due the glory of having suppressed this 
sect in its very birth.” It was in the midst of 
this controversy, as the same historian states, 
that Augustine delivered his views concerning 


14 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


“the necessity of divine grace in order to our sal¬ 
vation, and the decrees of God with respect to 
the future condition of men;” and when certain 
Monks advanced the doctrine so often charged 
upon Calvinists, “that God not only predes¬ 
tinated the wicked to eternal punishment, but 
also to the guilt and transgression for which 
they were punished; and that thus both the 
good and the bad actions of all men were deter¬ 
mined from eternity, and fixed by an invincible 
necessity;” Augustine made as decided opposi¬ 
tion to this doctrine, as to Pelagianism, “and 
explained his true sentiments with more perspi¬ 
cuity, that it might not be attributed to him.”* 
Amongst the earlier believers in the system 
of doctrine called Calvinistic, we may, with great 
propriety, mention the Waldenses and Albigenses, 
—those eminent and honored witnesses for the 
truth, during the long period when the Church 
and the world were overrun with gross error and 
immorality. In one of their Creeds, containing 
a brief summary of their faith, “which,” say 
they, “hath been taught them from the father 
to the sonne for these many hundred yeares, and 
taken out of the word of God,” the second Arti- 


*Vol. l,pt. 2, p. 372. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


15 


cle is as follows: “All that have been, or shall 
be saved, have been chosen of God before all 
worlds.” The fourth Article reads thus: “Who¬ 
soever holdeth free-will [i. e. in the Pelagian 
sense,] denieth wholly the predestination of 
God.”* It is difficult with certainty to trace 
this wonderful people to their origin; but certain 
it is, that no body of people under the sun have 
so long and so firmly held an evangelical faith 
and a sound morality, against the most pro¬ 
tracted and cruel persecutions. All evangelical 
Protestants look to them as the heroic defenders 
of the faith once delivered to the saints, during 
long ages of universal corruption. And when 
the glorious Reformation of the sixteenth cen¬ 
tury commenced, “these scattered adherents to 
the faith once delivered to the saints,” as Dr. 
Fisk, an eminent Methodist writer, remarks, 
“were prepared to give aid and influence to the 
first general struggle that was made to reform 
the impurities of the Church. ”f 

The Reformation was a glorious event The 
Christian world regard it as a wonderful revi¬ 
val of true religion, wrought by the Spirit of 
God,—as the dawn of a brighter day in the his- 


* See Perrin’s History. 


f Fisk’s Travels, p. 122. 



10 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

tory of the Church, and in the history of civil 
and religious liberty. And who were the men 
chosen of God to be the instruments in accom¬ 
plishing this mighty work, in elevating once 
more the cross of Christ, and in staying the 
overwhelming tide of tyranny, superstition and 
immorality? They were men who held and 
preached the Calvinistic doctrines. For, al¬ 
though the doctrine of Divine foreordination 
and its kindred doctrines have been called by 
the name of John Calvin, their most illustrious 
defender, it is well known, that the other reform¬ 
ers, Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, CEcolampa- 
dius, Knox and Cranmer, all held the same 
views; and hence all the Creeds drawn up by 
those men of God are decidedly Calvinistic. 

It is truly an instructive fact, that when error 
and superstition were rapidly overrunning the 
Church in the close of the fourth and in the be¬ 
ginning of the fifth century, the most effective 
opposition was made by an eminent minister 
holding the views afterward so successfully de¬ 
fended by Calvin and the reformers. It is a 
fact no less instructive, that during the dark 
ages, sound doctrine and pure morality found a 
retreat in the fastnesses of the Alps, and were 
wonderfully defended and preserved by the Cal- 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


17 


vinistic Waldenses and Albigenses. It is a 
fact which speaks volumes for Calvinism, that 
the most glorious revolution recorded in the his¬ 
tory of the Church and of the world, since the 
days of the Apostles, was effected by the bless¬ 
ing of God upon its doctrines. Whatever there 
is of evangelical doctrine, and of civil and reli¬ 
gious liberty in the world, must be traced, under 
God, to the writings and the preaching of Cal¬ 
vinists. 

The thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Eng¬ 
land are decidedly Calvinistic; and in the days 
of her greatest purity her Ministry preached 
most faithfully the doctrines of her Creed. On 
the other hand, as her vital piety and spiritual¬ 
ity declined, and her morality became more and 
more lax, this unfavorable change was marked 
by a change as decided from Calvinistic to Ar- 
minian sentiments. About the time when the 
notorious Archbishop Laud flourished, Macaulay 
says,—“A divine of that age, who was asked by 
a simple country gentleman what the Arminians 
held, answered, with as much truth as wit, that 
they held all the best Bishoprics and Deaneries 
of England.”* Laud and his Clergy were most 


2* 


*Vol. l,p. 74. 




18 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


zealously Arminian in their theology, and at the 
same time they displayed a spirit of bigotry and 
persecution which was scarcely exceeded by 
Rome herself. But in every age, the most 
evangelical and spiritual Ministers of the Church 
of England, have been decided Calvinists; and 
those of an opposite character have been decided 
Arminians. Dr. Thomas Scott, the celebrated 
Commentator, whilst an unconverted Minister of 
that Church, was an Arian, and a bitter opposer 
of the Calvinistic doctrines. When truly con¬ 
verted, he not only renounced Arianism, but be¬ 
came a firm and consistent Calvinist; and from 
that day he was an eminently good and useful 
man. He was confirmed, as he states, in the 
belief of the Calvinistic doctrines, by the fact, 
“that they were admitted, at the beginning of 
the reformation, into the creeds, catechisms, or 
articles of every one of the Protestant churches; 
that our [Episcopal,] articles and homilies ex¬ 
pressly maintained them: and, consequently, 
that a vast number of wise and sober-minded 
men, who, in their days, were burning and 
shining lights, upon mature deliberation, had 
agreed, not only that they were true, but that 
they ought to be admitted as useful, or even as 
necessary articles of faith by every one, who 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. ][Q 

deemed himself called to take upon him the of¬ 
fice of a Christian minister.”* Legh Rich¬ 
mond, whose praise will long be in all the 
churches, was a Calvinist. But we need not 
mention particular names. Go and inquire into 
the theology of the High-church-men and Pu- 
seyites of England and America, and you will 
find not a Calvinist amongst them. Then in¬ 
quire into that of the most evangelical of the 
Low-church ministers, and you will find few, if 
any, Arminians amongst them. 

For three centuries past, the character of the 
Scotch has been moulded by a strictly Calvinis- 
tic theology. And what country on the globe 
has exhibited a purer morality? What Church 
has embraced a greater number of eminently 
pious people, or can exhibit a larger list of mar¬ 
tyrs for the cause of Christ? What Church has 
made so firm and uncompromising opposition to 
tyranny, and done so much for civil and religious 
liberty? And where is there now a Church of 
such liberality in giving to the cause of Christ, 
or doing more for the spread of the Gospel, than 
the Free Church of Scotland? In that Church, 
freed from the trammels of civil interference, 


* Force of Truth. 



20 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


Calvinism is now exhibiting its real character, 
and bringing forth its legitimate fruits. 

Nor do we hesitate to point the opposers of 
Calvinism to the Presbyterian church of these 
United States, to all the different branches of 
the Presbyterian church in Europe and America, 
and to the Puritans of Old England and of New 
England, and to challenge a comparison of their 
morals, their good works, their efforts to promote 
the spread of the gospel, their labors in the cause 
of liberty and of education, with any other de¬ 
nomination or class of denominations holding 
Arminian sentiments. Even in the victorious 
army of Oliver Cromwell, a purity of morals un¬ 
known in military bodies, was preserved. “But 
that which chiefly distinguished the army of 
Cromwell from other armies,” says Macaulay, 
“was the austere morality and the fear of God 
which pervaded all ranks. It is acknowledged 
by the most zealous royalists that, in that sin¬ 
gular camp, no oath was heard, no drunkenness 
or gambling was seen, and that, during the long 
dominion of the soldiery, the property of the 
peaceable citizen and the honor of woman were 
held sacred. If outrages were committed, they 
were outrages of a very different kind from those 
of which a victorious army is generally guilty. 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


21 


No servant-girl complained of the rough gal¬ 
lantry of the red coats; not an ounce of plate 
was taken from the shops of the goldsmiths,” 
etc.* That Puritan army were not faultless; 
far from it; but we may safely challenge the 
opposers of Calvinism to produce another in the 
records of history of as pure morality. 

There is another fact illustrative of the true 
character of the Calvinistic doctrines, which we 
must not pass unnoticed, viz: that those doctrines 
have never been found associated with fundamental 
error . The history of the Christian church 
affords not an instance of a sect holding the 
doctrines of Divine Decrees and Maris Free 
Agency , and rejecting any doctrine which is fun¬ 
damental to Christianity. Some heretics have 
held the doctrine of Divine Decrees, and denied 
Man’s Free Agency; and some have held the 
1 latter and denied the former; but no heretical 
sect was ever known to hold both Divine De¬ 
crees and Free Agency, as these doctrines are 
held by Calvinists. On the contrary, if any 
man or class of men professing to be Calvinists, 
have abandoned the fundamental doctrines of 
Christianity, they have commenced their down- 


* Vol. 1, p. 114. 



22 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

ward course by renouncing the doctrines peculiar 
to Calvinism. The celebrated Dr. Priestley 
commenced his wanderings by becoming an Ar- 
minian, and ended them by embracing a Mate¬ 
rialistic Universalism. Out of a multitude of 
examples which might be given, we select one. 
In the progress of the great revival which spread 
rapidly over the Western States, in the begin¬ 
ning of the present century, several Presbyterian 
ministers of some prominence left the church, 
and fell into fatal errors. Of these, some united 
with the Shakers; one became the father of a 
new Arian sect, called New-lights; and two re¬ 
turned to the church. Amongst the first acts 
of these men, after leaving the church, was the 
publication of an “ Apology,” in which they de¬ 
nied “the positions of the Confession of Faith 
in regard to the Divine Decrees, the Atonement, 
and the special influences of the Spirit in the 
production of faith.”* Never was it known, 
that any man holding the doctrine of Divine 
Decrees and Free Agency, embraced fundamen¬ 
tal error, without renouncing this doctrine. 

Now if the Calvinistic doctrines are of the de- 


* Davidson’s History of the Presbyterian Church in Ken¬ 
tucky, p. 195. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


23 


moralizing, God-dishonoring character charged 
by their opponents, how shall we account, in the 
first place, for their effects upon the moral char¬ 
acter of men; and, in the second, for their entire 
separation, at all times, from all fundamental 
errors? 

1. How shall we account for their fruits , or 
effects upon moral character? They are said to 
destroy the truth of revelation; and yet those 
holding them have stood in the front ranks of 
the defenders of revelation; and no communities 
have been more free from scepticism, than those 
amongst whom these doctrines have been most 
faithfully preached. They are said to be irre¬ 
concilable with human accountability, and thus 
to destroy the very foundations of morals; and 
yet no people on earth have manifested a deeper 
and more abiding sense of their accountability, 
or maintained a purer morality, than Calvinists. 
In this respect even their enemies have been 
'constrained to bear a strong testimony in their 
favor. The Calvinistic doctrines are said to be 
decidedly unfavorable to good works; and yet 
no denomination of Christians on earth have 
manifested a greater zeal for good works, or have 
endured more self-denial in performing them, 
than Calvinists. They are said to make preach- 


24 GOD sovereign and man free. 

ing useless, and to quiet the consciences of sin¬ 
ners; and yet no class of ministers in the world 
have preached with more zeal or with more pow¬ 
erful effects, than those holding and preaching 
these doctrines. Think of the incessant labors 
of such men as David Brainerd, Henry Martyn, 
and a multitude like them, for the conversion of 
the heathen. And then compare the preaching 
of such men as George Whitfield, Rowland Hill, 
Richard Baxter, Legh Richmond, President Ed¬ 
wards, Samuel Davies, William Tennant, Dr. Net- 
tleton, and a multitude of others, with that of 
any similar number of Arminian preachers the 
world ever produced, and we fear not the verdict 
of the impartial. The Calvinistic doctrines are 
said to be very unfavorable to high attainments 
in piety; and yet a larger proportion of persons 
eminently pious, and of books calculated to pro¬ 
mote spirituality, cannot be found, than the Cal- • 
vinistic churches present. Read Doddridge’s 
Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, Owen 
on the Spirit, Baxter’s Saint’s Everlasting Rest, 1 
Bunyan’s Pilgrim, John Newton’s works, Legh 
Richmond’s Dairyman’s Daughter, Guthrie’s ' 
Christian’s Great Interest, Alexander’s Religious 
Experience, Edwards on the Affections, the Bio¬ 
graphies of Martyn, Payson, Brainerd, etc., etc. 




FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


25 


Now how are we to account for the clear and 
certain fact, that the effects of the Calvinistic 
doctrines have been not only widely different 
from their alleged tendencies, but diametrically 
opposite to them? How has it happened, if their 
decided tendency is to produce certain evil 
effects, that the effects actually produced have 
been of an entirely opposite character? The 
opponents of these doctrines must take one of 
the following positions: First, that the facts 
stated concerning the moral character of Calvin¬ 
ists, are not true; or, second, that they have 
not really believed the doctrines taught in their 
creeds, catechisms, and theological books; or, 
third, that they hold so much truth as to neu¬ 
tralize the effects of their errors; or, fourth, that 
blasphemous error may produce as sound moral¬ 
ity as truth; or, fifth, that the Calvinistic doc¬ 
trines are scriptural and true. 

Will they deny the facts stated concerning 
the moral and religious character of Calvinists? 
They cannot; for faithful history, not written by 
Calvinists, has recorded the past, and the present 
speaks for itself. We point to the Calvinistic 
denominations of the present day, and say; be¬ 
hold the fruits of Calvinism! 

Will the opponents of Calvinism deny, that 


26 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


Calvinists have really held the doctrines of their 
creed? Surely it will be admitted, that they 
know what they believe. It would be strange, 
indeed, if they did not believe them, since they 
are impressed upon their minds from the days 
of childhood. Who does not know, that the 
great mass of the children of Scotland, for long 
generations, have been thoroughly drilled in the 
Shorter Catechism from infancy? And who 
does not know, that in this country, that cate¬ 
chism is to be found in the great majority of the 
families and in the Sabbath-schools of Presbyte¬ 
rians and Congregationalists? Besides, the Cal¬ 
vinist doctrines are preached in all our pulpits, 
and defended in all our religious papers, from 
week to week, and from year to year. 

Will it be said, that Calvinists hold so much 
truth, that their errors are neutralized, and there¬ 
fore produce little or no injurious effects? This 
will not be pretended; for the opponents of Cal¬ 
vinism do roundly affirm, that these doctrines 
neutralize or destroy all others; that they sub¬ 
vert man’s free agency and accountability; that 
they discourage the performance of good works; 
that they destroy the very foundations of morali¬ 
ty. Besides, these doctrines have always been 
very prominent in the Calvinistic system, and 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


27 


have ever given character to it. It is impossible, 
therefore, that their deleterious effects, if they 
tended to produce such, should not have become 
perfectly manifest long ago. Will it be said, 
that blasphemous error, though it tends to im¬ 
morality, may yet produce, for centuries together, 
pure morality and an abundance of good works? 
No sane man will maintain a position so absurd. 
The conclusion, then, appears inevitable, that 
the Calvinistic doctrines, if judged by their fruits, 
(and there is no safer way of judging,) are scrip¬ 
tural and true. 

2. And how shall we account for the indubi¬ 
table fact, that these doctrines have always been 
associated with the great doctrines of the cross? 
False doctrines,it is admitted,are often associated 
with the true, but more frequently they will be 
found with the false; just as a bad man may 
sometimes be found in good company, but will 
generally seek that which is more congenial to 
his feelings. But the man who always chooses 
the company of the good, and who is most dis¬ 
liked by the vicious, must be a good man. It 
is certainly a very remarkable fact, that the doc¬ 
trines of Divine Foreordination and Free Agency 
have never, in a single instance, been associated 
with heresy in any of its forms. If they were 


28 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


of the world, would not the world love its own? 
If they were of the devil, would not some of his 
children admire and embrace them? If they 
afforded the best excuse for sin, would they not 
be most agreeable to sinners? We leave the 
the opposers of these doctrines to answer these 
questions, whilst we proceed to state and defend, 
from the direct testimony of God’s word, the 
doctrine of Divine Decrees. 




CHAPTER II. 


THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE FOREORDINATION STATED, AND THE 
STATEMENT SHOWN TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIP¬ 
TURES, THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, AND WITH 
STANDARD CALVINISTIC WRITERS. 

The purposes of God relate to the creation and 
the government of all things. 

1. God created all things. This truth no 
Christian disputes; nor will any one pretend, 
that the work of creation was an accidental work. 
All will readily admit, that God first formed the 
purpose to create, and then put forth the crea¬ 
tive act in fulfilment of that purpose. All 
Christians will adopt the language of the Psalm¬ 
ist,—“0 Lord, how manifold are thy works! In 
wisdom hast thou made them all.” All unite 
in saying,—“The heavens declare the glory of 
God,”—the glory of his wisdom, power and be¬ 
nevolence. 

2. But God purposed to govern the world 
which he created. No Christian believes, that 
the creation of this world was the end of God’s 
purposes concerning it,—that he determined to 
create the world and place man in it, and then 

3 * 


30 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


to leave both the world and man to their for¬ 
tunes. All must agree, (for the Scriptures abun¬ 
dantly declare it,) that in creating the world he 
had in view some great end or ends worthy of 
his infinite perfections; and that he is now gov¬ 
erning the world so as to accomplish those ends. 

Of the purposes of God concerning the affairs 
of this world, we read in such passages of Scrip¬ 
ture as the following: “I am God, and there is 
none like me, declaring the end from the begin¬ 
ning, and from ancient times the things that are 
not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, 
and I will do all my pleasure.”* Again,—“The 
Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to 
nought: he maketh the devices of the people of 
none effect. The counsel of the Lord standeth 
forever, the thoughts of his heart to all genera¬ 
tions.”'!' Again,—“There are many devices in 
a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the 
Lord, that shall stand.”J From these and a 
multitude of similar passages, it is clear that God 
has many purposes concerning this world, and 
concerning men; and that all those purposes 
will certainly be fulfilled. Indeed the most im¬ 
portant prophecies of the Old and New Testa- 


*lsai. 46: 9, 10. fPs. 33: 10, 11. \ Prov. 19: 21. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 31 

ments are n6t so much predictions of what will 
come to pass, as revelations of what God has 
purposed to bring to pass . 

But what was the great purpose for which our 
world was created? The Scriptures teach us, 
that the great end of creation was the manifes¬ 
tation of the glory of God. “The Lord,” says 
Solomon, “hath made all things for himself.”* 
And holy beings around the throne of God, 
sing,—“Thou art worthy, 0 Lord, to receive 
glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast cre¬ 
ated all tilings, and for thy pleasure they are 
and were created. ”t 

But though all the works of God declare his 
glory, it was by man , created in his moral image, 
that God designed chiefly to manifest his glory. 
“The final cause of man’s creation,” as Rev. 
Richard Watson, a Methodist writer, well re¬ 
marks, “was the display of the glory of God, 
and principally his moral perfections.’’^ But 
how is God to be glorified by men? Before 
they were created, God foresaw the fall of the 
human race into sin. He could not have de¬ 
signed, therefore, that they should glorify him 
by continuing in a state of holiness. Accord- 


* Prov. 16: 4. f Rev. 4: 11. |Theol. Inst. pt. 2, ch. 18. 



32 GOD sovereign and man free. 

ingly we are taught in the Scriptures, that Christ 
“was foreordained before the foundation of the 
world” to become the Saviour of fallen men. 
And Paul the Apostle uses the following lan¬ 
guage on this subject: “Unto me, who am less 
than the least of all saints, is this grace given, 
that I should preach among the Gentiles the 
unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all 
men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, 
which from the beginning of the world hath been 
hid in God, who created all things by Christ 
Jesus: to the intent that now unto the princi- 
cipalities and powers in heavenly places might 
be known by the church the manifold wisdom 
of God, according to the eternal purpose which 
he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”* 

From this language we learn, that God from 
eternity purposed to manifest to his rational 
creatures his manifold wisdom by means of the 
church redeemed by Christ, and that in fulfil¬ 
ment of this purpose he created all things by 
Christ. Even Watson, though a decided Ar- 
minian, says,—“The redemption of man by 
Christ was certainly not an after-thought brought 
in upon man’s apostacy; it was a provision, and 


Eph. 3: 8-11. 




FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


33 


when man fell, he found justice hand in hand 
with mercy.”* We are warranted, then, in the 
conclusion, that God from eternity designed this 
world to he the theatre on which he would dis¬ 
play his manifold wisdom by the redemption of 
fallen men. 

For the accomplishment of this glorious de¬ 
sign God has governed the world from the be¬ 
ginning, and will govern it to the end. When 
our Saviour gave his Apostles the great com¬ 
mission to go and teach all nations, he said,— 
“All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth.” And Paul teaches us, that Christ is 
now “far above all principality, and power, and 
might, and dominion, and every name that is 
named, not only in this world, but also in that 
which is to come;” and that God “hath put all 
things under his feet, and gave him to be head 
over all things to the church.” And for the 
salvation of his church, “he must reign, till he 
hath put all enemies under his feet.” We can 
never understand the providence of God over 
our world, unless we regard it as a complicated 
machinery, having ten thousand parts, directed 
in all its operations to one glorious end ,—the 


* Theol. Inst. pt. 2 , ch. 18. 



34 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


display of the manifold wisdom of God in the 
salvation of the Church of Christ . And even 
when viewed in this Scriptural light, there are 
many things too deep for our limited powers; 
and we are obliged to exclaim, as did Paul con¬ 
cerning the dispersion of the Jews,—“0 the 
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his 
judgments and his ways past finding out!” 

The government of the world is naturally divi¬ 
ded into the government of matter and the gov¬ 
ernment of mind. Concerning the former, there 
is no dispute amongst Christians. Whilst all 
all agree that God governs matter, in some sense, 
by fixed laws, all must admit that he so inter¬ 
poses as to send his blessings or his judgments 
upon his creatures as his infinite wisdom dictates. 
At one time he sends the early and the latter 
rain, and blesses the land with fruitful seasons; 
at another, he curses it with drought and famine. 
Now he commissions the breezes to bear upon 
their bosoms the blessings of health; then he 
loads them with pestilential vapors, spreading 
death and mourning in their course. How he 
exerts this controlling influence over matter, we 
know not; but that he does so, no one who be¬ 
lieves the Scriptures, can doubt. 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


35 


But the most important, as well as the most 
difficult part of this subject, relates to the gov¬ 
ernment of mind. To what extent and by what 
influences does God govern men and angels? 
They are divided into two classes,—the righteous 
and the wicked; and they perform two classes 
of actions,—the good and the bad. 

I. Perhaps most professing Christians will 
admit, that God is, in an important sense, the 
author of all pure affections and actions. The 
holy angels he created in his own image, as he 
created man; and he has preserved them in holi¬ 
ness. Since the fall, all men are born into the 
world totally depraved. In this truth the more 
evangelical class of Arminians agree with us; 
and as we design not now to argue with those 
who deny the fundamental doctrines of Christi¬ 
anity, we shall not stop to prove the doctrine of 
original sin , but shall take it as admitted. Now 
it is evident, that from a totally depraved heart 
pure affections and actions cannot proceed.— 
Consequently whatever of holiness there is in 
any human being, must proceed from the Spirit 
of God. And so teaches the inspired Paul. 
He enumerates the Christian virtues, as love, 
joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, 
faith, meekness, temperance, and pronounces 







36 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

them all “the fruit of the Spirit.”* And all the 
good works of men he teaches us to regard as 
effects of regeneration. “For we are his work¬ 
manship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
which God hath before ordained, that we should 
walk in them.”! And when he exhorts Chris¬ 
tians to work out their salvation, he adds,—“for 
it is God which worketh in you both to will and 
to do of his good pleasure.”}: 

Besides that influence by which the heart is 
sanctified, God exerts upon good men a directing 
influence, by which they are guided through life. 
“The steps of a good man are ordered by the 
Lord: and he delighteth in his way.”|| What 
Solomon says of men generally, is specially true 
of those over whom the good Shepherd exercises a 
particular care,—“Man’s goings are of the Lord: 
how can a man then understand his own way?”§ 
How God exerts upon the human mind a sanc¬ 
tifying and controlling influence without inter¬ 
fering with its free agency and accountability, 
we cannot explain; but that he does so, is too 
clear to be disputed. 

But what shall we say of the government 


* Gal. 5: 22, 23. f Eph. 2: 10. } Phil. 2: 12, 13. 

|| Ps. 37: 23. §Frov.20: 24. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


37 


which God exercises over wicked men and their 
actions? To answer this question satisfactorily, 
we must inquire into the origin of sin in our 
world. Our first parents were created in the 
moral image of God, and were placed on probation 
in the garden of Eden, “having the law of God 
written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; 
and yet under a possibility of transgressing, 
being left to the liberty of their own will, which 
was subject unto change.” They were tempted 
by Satan; they yielded to the temptation, and 
fell; and all their posterity were involved in the 
fall. Consequently all men are now born in 
total depravity, being entirely destitute of holi¬ 
ness and disposed only to sin. 

Now let it be understood, we deny that God 
exerted, or purposed to exert any influence on 
the minds of our first parents, inclining them to 
sin. Our Confession teaches distinctly, that 
they were “left to the liberty of their own will,” 
and were endowed with power to fulfill the re¬ 
quirements of God.* Calvin taught, that man 
in his primitive state possessed reason, under¬ 
standing, prudence and judgment, not only for 
the government of his life on earth, but to ena- 


* Westminster Confession, eh. 4. 



38 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


ble him to ascend even to God and eternal feli¬ 
city; that to these was added choice to direct 
the appetites, and regulate all the organic mo¬ 
tions, so that he was entirely conformed to 
the government of reason; that in this integrity 
he was endued with free will, by which, if he 
had chosen, he might have obtained eternal life; 
and that Adam could have stood if he would, 
since he fell merely by his own will.* 

In what sense, then, did God foreordain the 
fall of man? The Westminster Confession an¬ 
swers this question in the following language: 
“Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty 
and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the 
forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, 
according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, 
having purposed to order it to his own glory.”f 
God, who knew all things, knew that Satan 
would tempt our first parents, and that the 
temptation would be successful. This he knew 
perfectly, when he created them, and placed 
them in the garden of Eden; and, as Rev. Rich¬ 
ard Watson admits, he had, even before the fall, 
made provision for the redemption of the human 
race. It will not be pretended, that God could 


* Inst.. Book 1. ch, 15. fch, 6 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


39 


not have prevented Satan from entering the 
garden, and tempting Eve; nor will any one 
say, that he was indifferent to the fate of the 
first pair and of all their posterity. We cannot 
avoid the conclusion, therefore, that for wise rea¬ 
sons God was pleased to endow man with just 
such powers as he gave him and no greater, to 
place him in the circumstances in which Satan 
found him, and to permit Satan successfully to 
tempt him. That God permitted the tempta¬ 
tion, knowing it would be successful, is certain; 
and that he had wise reasons for such permis¬ 
sion, is equally clear. And inasmuch as all 
things were created for his glory, we hold, (and 
who will venture to deny it?) that he purposed 
to order this sin to his glory, in connection with 
the plan of redemption. Our doctrine, then, 
concerning the first sin committed by man, and 
in which the human race was involved, is simply, 
that God for wise reasons decreed or purposed, 
first, to permit , and, secondly, to override it for 
his glory. 

As Adam stood in his trial as the representa¬ 
tive of his posterity, the whole race fell in his 
fall; and the consequences of his sin passed upon 
them as well as upon him. Richard Watson 
teaches, that the death threatened as the penalty 




40 


(JOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


of Adam’s transgression included “corporeal, 
moral or spiritual, and eternal death;” that “the 
sentence included also the whole of his posteri¬ 
ty;” and consequently all are born in a state of 
spiritual death or of total depravity.* We do 
not believe, however, that original sin , in which all 
are born, consists in any depravation of the soul, 
or the infusion of any positive evil. The Con¬ 
fessions of the Reformed Churches, all of which 
are decidedly Calvinistic, teach, as Rev. Dr. 
Hodge states, “that original righteousness, as a 
punishment of Adam’s sin, was lost, and by that 
defect the tendency to sin, or corrupt disposition, 
or corruption of nature, is occasioned.” And 
the same able writer agrees with President Ed¬ 
wards, “that the absence of positive good prin¬ 
ciples, and the withholding of special divine in¬ 
fluence, and the leaving of the common princi¬ 
ples of self-love, natural appetite, which were in 
man in innocence, are sufficient to account for 
all the corruption which appears among men.”| 
We have now clearly before us the Calvinistic 
view of the origin of sin, so far as the human 
race is concerned, and of the total depravity in 
which all are born. God created the world, and 


* Theol. Inst., pt. 2 , ch. 18. f Com. on 5th ch. of Horn. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


41 


placed man in it for his own glory. He pur¬ 
posed to display his manifold wisdom by means 
of the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ. 
He, therefore, purposed to permit the tempta¬ 
tion and the fall of our first parents, and to leave 
their posterity, deprived of original righteous¬ 
ness, to the workings of their own minds and 
hearts. All, therefore, are dead in sin. 

We are now prepared to inquire into the na¬ 
ture of the government or control which God 
exercises over wicked men. This is a most im¬ 
portant question; for God governs wicked men 
for the purpose of accomplishing his holy ends; 
and the influence he now exerts upon them, is 
precisely the influence which from eternity he 
purposed to exert. The influence which he ex¬ 
erts upon wicked men, is of four kinds, viz: 

1. A restraining influence, by which they are 
prevented from doing what they are naturally 
inclined to do. Thus God said to Abimelech, 
king of Gerar, who took Sarah from Abraham,— 
“For I also withheld thee from sinning against 
me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.”* 
And to encourage the Jews to attend their three 
annual festivals at Jerusalem, he said,—“Neither 


4* 


* Gen. 20.: 0. 



42 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt 
go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice 
in the year.’’* He promised, during their at¬ 
tendance on their festivals, to restrain the cov¬ 
etous desires of their pagan neighbors. 

2. God often exerts on the minds of wicked men 
what we may call a softening influence, disposing 
them, contrary to their natural inclination, to do 
that which will promote his cause. Cyrus, king 
of Persia, was a pagan and a wicked man; yet 
in order that the prophecy in Jeremiah might 
be fulfilled, “the Lord stirred up the spirit of 
Cyrus king of Persia,, that he made a proclama¬ 
tion throughout all his kingdom,” in favor of 
the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem/)* 
And when Artaxerxes afforded the Jews aid in 
the same work, Ezra said,—“Blessed be the 
Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a 
thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the 
house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem: and 
hath extended mercy unto me before the king, 
and his counsellors, and before all the king’s 
mighty princes. 

3. God exerts on the minds of wicked men a 
directing influence, so that good is made to re- 


* Exod. 34: *24. 


f Ezra 1:1. | Ezra 7: 27, 28. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


43 


suit from their intended evil. The brethren of 
Joseph hated him, and determined to kill him. 
This wicked design God prevented through the 
instrumentality of Reuben, whose heart was soft¬ 
ened. In the absence of Reuben, certain Ish- 
maelitish merchants passed by; and God per¬ 
mitted them to sell Joseph to them. They were 
wicked men, and were, therefore, willing to en¬ 
slave a noble youth for the sake of gain; but 
God in his providence so ordered things, that 
they were on their way to Egypt,—the country 
to which he purposed to send Joseph,—and that 
they passed by just at the right time. That 
the hand of God was in this event and in those 
which, in the same connection, preceded and fol¬ 
lowed it, we know; for Joseph said to his breth¬ 
ren,—“God sent me before you, to preserve you 
a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives 
by a great deliverance.”* This directing influ¬ 
ence, which God exerts over wicked men, is con¬ 
stantly spoken of in the Scriptures. Of the 
proud king of Assyria, God said,—“I will send 
him against a hypocritical nation, and against 
the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, 
etc. ITowbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth 


* Gen. 45: 7. 





44 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

his heart think so Solomon says,—“ A man’s 

heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth 
his steps.”! And again,—“The king’s heart is 
in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: 
he turneth it whithersoever he will”! Jeremiah 
says,—“0 Lord, I know that the way of man is 
not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to 
direct his steps.” [| 

4. There is a sense in which God hardens the 
hearts of wicked men, and blinds their minds. 
When God commanded Moses to perform mira¬ 
cles in the presence of Pharaoh, and to require 
him, in the name of the God of Israel, to let his 
people go, he said,—“But I will harden his heart, 
that he shall not let the people go.”§ And 
when Pharaoh and his army pursued the Jews 
to the Bed Sea, God bade them go forward, 
and said,—“Behold, I will harden the hearts of 
the Egyptians, and they shall follow them; and 
I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all 
his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horse- 
men.”H When the Spirit of the Lord departed 
from Saul, king of Israel, “an evil spirit from 
the Lord troubled him.” ## When God would 


% Isai. 10: 6, 7. fProv. 16: 9. ^Prov. 21:1. || Jer. 10: 
23. § Exod. 4: 21. H Exod. 14: 17. ** 1 Sam. 16: 14. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


45 


send Ahab to battle to be slain, Micaiah the 
prophet said, “the Lord hath put a lying spirit 
in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the 
Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” # Con¬ 
cerning the rebellious Jews who rejected the 
Saviour, it is said,—“lie hath blinded their 
eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should 
not see with their eyes, nor understand with 
their heart, and be converted, and I should heal 
them..”! 

By these and similar declarations of the Scrip¬ 
tures, we do not understand, as already stated, 
that God exerts an influence upon the hearts of 
men, disposing them to feel and act wickedly. 
Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, as we believe, 
first, by his being given up of God to his evil 
dispositions, as were the heathen of whom Paul 
speaksand, secondly, by the repeated and, to 
him, irritating command to give up without com¬ 
pensation the enslaved people of God. Saul was 
given up of God, and left to be tempted and 
tormented by the devil. Ahab, unwilling to be¬ 
lieve the true prophets, was abandoned to be 
deluded and ruined by false prophets. The un¬ 
believing Jews were left to themselves, and were 


1 Kings 22: 23. f John 12: 40. \ Rom. 1. 





46 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

consequently both hardened and blinded. But 
in all these cases, God had wise purposes to ac¬ 
complish, and as the Psalmist had said, the wrath 
of man was made to praise him; and the remain¬ 
der of wrath he restrained.* 

II. The doctrine of Divine decrees, then, may 
be briefly summed up as follows: 1. God, from 
eternity, purposed to govern matter as he is now 
governing it, in accordance generally with fixed 
laws. 2. God is properly the author of all true 
holiness in men, and he produces such holiness 
according to his eternal purpose. 3. God chose 
to permit some angels and all the human race to 
fall into sin, and so to overrule their dispositions, 
softening, restraining, directing, hardening, as to 
bring good out of evil, to accomplish his all-wise 
purposes. 

And this is the doctrine, as taught in the 
Westminster Confession of Faith. “God from 
all eternity did by the most wise and holy coun¬ 
sel of his own will, freely and unchangeably fore¬ 
ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as 
thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is 
violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor 
is the liberty or contingency of second causes 


*Ps. 76: 10. 



FOREORDI NATION PROVED. 


47 


taken away, but rather established.”* But how 
is this? If God has foreordained whatsoever 
comes to pass, how is it that he is not the author 
of sin? The answer to this question may be 
found in the chapters on the fall of man and on 
providence. Of the fall of man, the Confession, 
as we have already seen, says,—“This their sin 
God was pleased, according to his wise and holy 
counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it 
to his own glory.” Two things only did God 
purpose to do concerning the fall of man, viz: 
to permit it, and to overrule it for good. In the 
chapter on providence we read,—“ The almighty 
power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite good¬ 
ness of God, so far manifest themselves in his 
providence, that it extendeth itself to the first 
fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and 
that not by a bare permission, but such as hath 
joined with it a most wise and powerful bound¬ 
ing, and otherwise ordering and governing of 
them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy 
ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth 
only from the creature, and not from God; who 
being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor 
can be, the author or approver of sin.” God 


*Westmin. Conf. ch. 3. 



48 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


fulfills his decrees by his providential and gracious 
influences. With the sinful actions of angels 
and men, his providential influence only is con¬ 
cerned. He permits their sinful dispositions, but 
does not produce them. Yet he does more than 
barely to permit; he bounds, directs, restrains 
and controls then* actions to his own holy ends. 
And inasmuch as he simply permits and controls 
the sinful actions of men, he is not the author 
or approver of sin. There is nothing inconsis¬ 
tent in the idea, that God hated the treachery of 
Judas and the cruelty of the Jews toward our 
Saviour, and that he yet so overruled their con¬ 
duct, that his name was glorified, and the salva¬ 
tion of an innumerable multitude secured. It is 
certain, that they did only what his hand and his 
counsel determined before to be done. # “And 
indeed,” as Calvin well remarks, “unless the cru¬ 
cifixion of Christ was according to the will of 
God, what becomes of our redemption?” The 
doctrine of Divine decrees, as held by the Pres¬ 
byterian Church and by all enlightened Calvin¬ 
ists, is stated by the late venerable Dr. Green, 
in his lectures on the Shorter Catechism, in the 
following language: “All events, of whatever 


* Acts 4 : 27, 28. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


49 


kind, that take place in time, were determined, 
or foreordained by God from all eternity, thus to 
take place; and all for the ultimate promotion 
of his own glory. It ought, however, to be care¬ 
fully noted here, that all who soundly hold this 
doctrine, maintain that there is a difference al¬ 
ways to be kept up between what have been 
denominated the efficacious decrees and the per¬ 
missive decrees of God. Ilis efficacious decrees 
relate to whatever is morally good; his permis¬ 
sive decrees to whatever is morally evil . In 
other words, his immediate agency , according to 
his decree, is concerned in whatever is morally 
good,—his immediate agency is never concerned 
in what is morally evil. Evil he permits to take 
place, and efficaciously overrules it for good,— 
for the promotion of his glory.* The doctrine 
is very clearly expressed in the following lan¬ 
guage of Augustine, quoted with approbation by 
Calvin: “That they sin, proceeds from them¬ 
selves; that in sinning they perform this or that 
particular action, is from the power of God, who 
divideth the darkness according to his pleasure.”f 
That is, God permits men to have sinful disposi¬ 
tions and affections; but for his own glory he so 


Vol. 1, pp. 180, 181. f Institutes. B. 2, ch. 4. 



50 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


directs their course, that he brings good out of 
their intended evil. The doctrine is perfectly 
expressed by Solomon, when he says,—“A 
man’s heart deviseth his way; but the Lord di- 
recteth his steps.”* 

The Westminster Confession teaches further, 
that 66 Although God knows whatsoever may or 
can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; 
yet hath he not decreed anything because he 
foresaw it as future, or as that which would come 
to pass, upon such conditions.” God foresaw^, 
that our first parents would yield to the tempta¬ 
tion presented by Satan; but he did not purpose 
to permit the temptation and the fall, because 
he foresaw it as that which would come to pass, 
lie might have foreseen, that if the temptation 
were presented, Eve would yield; and he might 
have purposed to prevent the temptation. But 
for wise reasons he chose to permit both the 
temptation and the fall, designing to overrule 
both to his own holy ends. God did not pur¬ 
pose to send Joseph into Egypt, because he 
foresaw that his brethren would hate him and 
sell him, and that the Ishmaelitish merchants 
would readily buy him. He might have fore- 


* Proy. 16: 9. 



F0REORDINATION PROVED. 


;Vl 


seen, that such results would follow under the 
circumstances; and he might have purposed to 
deliver Joseph out of their hands. But he had 
a great and benevolent purpose to accomplish; 
and, therefore, he so ordered events, that the 
Ishmaelitish merchants were passing by just 
when Joseph had been thrown into a pit by his 
vindictive brethren. God did not decree the 
crucifixion of his Son, because he foresaw that 
wicked men would crucify him; but he decreed it 
because it was necessary to the salvation of men. 
God has revealed his purpose, on the day of 
judgment, to pronounce sentence of condemna¬ 
tion upon the wicked "for their sin.” He did 
not form the purpose to condemn them, because 
he foresaw that he would condemn them; but 
because he foresaw that they would live and die 
in sin, and because the ends of justice would re¬ 
quire their condemnation. 

This explanation of the doctrine will, we are 
confident, remove the difficulties by which, when 
incorrectly viewed, it has seemed to many to be 
pressed. The correct statement of it, it will be 
perceived, destroys the whole force of the objec¬ 
tions most plausibly urged against it. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE FOREORDINATION PROVED BY THE 
WORD OF GOD. 

Having carefully stated the doctrine of Divine 
decrees, as held by Presbyterians and by Cal¬ 
vinists generally, we now proceed to inquire 
more particularly, whether it is taught in the 
Word of God. For the sake of getting a clear 
view of the doctrine, it has been properly divided 
into two parts, viz: The general purposes of God, 
and the particular purposes relating to the sal¬ 
vation of men; or, in brief, Decrees and Election . 
The most of what we shall say in this chapter, 
will be on the former branch of the subject; 
though the providence and the efficacious grace 
of God do often so meet and mingle, that it 
may not be possible to keep them entirely dis¬ 
tinct. 

That, in the sense already explained, God did 
from all eternity foreordain whatsoever comes to 
pass, is clearly proved by the following consid¬ 
erations : 

I. The providence of God extends to all events , 
or to whatsoever comes to pass. The infinitely 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


53 


wise Jehovah has created nothing that is worth¬ 
less, and no creature of his is beneath his re¬ 
gard. Of all his creatures it is said,—“These 
wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them 
their meat in due season. That thou givest 
them, they gather: thou openest thy hand, they 
are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they 
are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they 
die, and return to their dust.”* Our Saviour 
encouraged his disciples to rely for temporal 
blessings upon the providence of God, by assur¬ 
ing them, that it extends to the fowls of the air, 
and even to the lilies of the field. “Behold the 
fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do 
they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heav¬ 
enly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much 
better than they?”f By a similar consideration 
he encouraged his Apostles to trust confidently 
in the divine protection, whilst engaged in their 
difficult and perilous mission. “Are not two 
sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them 
shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than 
many sparrows.”J Every blessing we enjoy, we 


*Ps. 104: 27-29. I Matt. 6: 26. \ Matt. 10: 29-31. 

5 * 



54 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


are taught to regard as a gift of God, # and every 
affliction we suffer, as a judgment, or a parental 
chastisement designed for our good.| In the 
Lord’s prayer we are taught to ask for daily 
bread, thus acknowledging a superintending pro¬ 
vidence over all the means by which, and the 
sources from which, it is obtained; and we are 
taught to pray for deliverance from temptation 
and evil, thus acknowledging the Divine control 
of all things and persons whose influence can 
temf>t, and whose power can injure us. Accord¬ 
ingly pious men have ever been accustomed 
gratefully to acknowledge the goodness of God 
in their blessings, and humbly to bear their trials 
as parental chastisements. If Abraham’s pious 
servant had occasion to speak of the greatness 
and the wealth of his master, he said,—“The 
Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he is 
become great: and he hath given him flocks and 
herds, and silver and gold,”J etc. If Jacob be¬ 
came wealthy in spite of the dishonesty of his 
father-in-law, he said,—“God* hath taken away 
the cattle of your father, and given them to 
me.”|| 


* James 1: 17. f Heb. 12: 5-11. \ Gen. 24: 35. 

| Gen. 31: 9. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


55 


The same providential control over the minds 
and actions of men, which is implied in some of 
the passages already quoted, is directly taught in 
many others. When Nehemiah desired permis¬ 
sion to leave Babylon, and go and build Jerusa¬ 
lem, being cup-bearer to the king, he must obtain 
his permission. He, therefore, prayed,—“0 
Lord, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be atten¬ 
tive to the prayer of thy servant, and to the 
prayer of thy servants who desire to fear thy 
name; and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this 
day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this 
man.”* And when Artaxerxes rendered the 
Jews important assistance in rebuilding and 
beautifying the temple, Ezra thus gave thanks: 
“Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, 
which hath put such a thing as this into the- 
king’s heart, to- beautify the house of the 
Lord which is in Jerusalem: and hath ex¬ 
tended mercy unto me before the king, and 
his counsellors, and before all the king’s migh¬ 
ty princes.”f Joseph, whilst a prisoner in 
Egypt, became a favorite of the keeper; and 
the inspired historian says,—“The Lord was 
with Joseph, and showed him mercy, and gave 


* Neh. 1: 11. 


+ Ezra 7: 27,28. 



56 G 00 SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

him favor in the sight of the keeper of the 
prison.”* 

The Scriptures teach us, that the wicked ac¬ 
tions of men, no less than the virtuous , are wholly 
under the Divine control. If Pharaoh, king of 
Egypt, stubbornly refused to obey the command 
to let the Israelites go, the Lord hardened his 
heart.| When the anger of the Lord was kin¬ 
dled against Israel, “he moved David against 
them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah;” 
and the desolating pestilence followed.J Be¬ 
cause of the sin of Solomon, God purposed to 
separate ten of the tribes of Israel from his king¬ 
dom, and give them to Jeroboam, one of his ser¬ 
vants. Ahijah the prophet, said to Jeroboam,— 
“For thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, 
Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand 
of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee.” 
When Rehoboam his son succeeded to the throne, 
the people demanded a milder government, and 
promised allegiance to him, if their request were 
granted. The integrity of the kingdom now de¬ 
pended upon his decision. lie took three days 
to consider the matter. He consulted the old 
•counsellors, who had stood before his father, and 


* Gren. 39: 2L f Exod. 7. J2Sam. 24:1. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 

they advised him to grant the request of the 
people. He took counsel with the young men 
who were his associates, and, following their ad¬ 
vice, he answered the people harshly, refusing 
their request, and threatening to increase their 
burdens. The result was, the revolt of the ten 
tribes. The inspired writer explains this re¬ 
markable event in the following language: "So 
the king hearkened not unto the people: for the 
cause was of God, that the Lord might perform 
his word, which he spake by the hand of Ahijah 
the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.”* 
We need no better illustration, and no stronger 
confirmation, than is here afforded, of the lan¬ 
guage of the Westminster Confession, viz: "God 
from all eternity did by the most wise and holy 
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably 
ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as 
thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is 
violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor 
is the liberty or 'Contingency of second causes 
taken away, but rather established.” That God 
had ordained the revolt of the ten tribes, and 
the reign of Jeroboam over them, is absolutely 
certain; for he had revealed the purpose before 


Comp. 1 Kings 11: 29-32, and 2Chron. 10. 



58 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


the event occurred. Yet Rehoboam was left 
free to consider all the motives which might in- 
fluence his conduct; and his advisers, old and 
young, were free in the counsel they respectively 
gave. All the contingencies naturally attend¬ 
ing such events, attended this. And yet such 
was the final decision, that the purpose of God 
was fulfilled; and the inspired writer could say 
with truth, “the cause was of God, that he might 
perform his word.” When God would destroy 
Ahab the wicked king of Israel in battle, Mica- 
iah the prophet said,-—“Now, therefore, behold, 
the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of 
these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken 
evil against thee.”* 

These historical facts, to which others will be 
added in the course of this discussion, do strik¬ 
ingly illustrate and confirm- the general truth 
taught in such passages of Scripture as the fol¬ 
lowing: “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but 
the Lord clirecteth his steps.” “The king’s 
heart is in the hands of the-Lord, as the rivers 
of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” 
“There are many devices in a man’s heart: nev¬ 
ertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall 


* 2 Chion. 18: 22. 




FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


59 


stand.”* “0 Lord, I know that the way of man 
is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh 
to direct his steps.”| “ Surely the wrath of man 

shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt 
thou restrain.”J All these passages teach with 
perfect clearness the free agency and accounta¬ 
bility of man, and the sovereignty of God in 
bringing to pass his wise purposes. Men form 
their plans, and form them freely; but God 
bounds, overrules and directs. 

The providence of God, then, extends to the 
wants and the lives of all his creatures, even the 
most worthless of them; to the lives and wants 
especially of his rational creatures; and still 
more especially, of his children; and to the ac¬ 
tions, good and bad, of all men. Is it not clear, 
therefore, that the providence of God extends to 
all things?—that “He worketh all things after 
the counsel of his own will?”|| 

It is the doctrine of a particular providence, 
that gives to the righteous a feeling of security 
in the midst of danger; that gives them assur¬ 
ance that the path of duty is the path of safety 
and of prosperity; and that encourages them to 
the practice of virtue, even when it exposes them 

* Prov. 6:9; 21 : 1 ; 19: 21. f Jer. 10: 23. J Pp. 76: 10. 

|IEph. 1 : 11. 




60 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


to the greatest reproach and persecution. How 
often, when clouds and darkness seem to gather 
over them, do they rejoice in the assurance given 
by their Saviour, “I will never leave thee, nor 
forsake thee.” How often have they, when 
overwhelmed with troubles and afflictions, taken 
fresh courage as they have read the language of 
Paul,—“We know that all things work together 
for good to them that love God, to them who 
are the called according to his purpose.” Where 
is the Christian who would willingly give up this j 
precious doctrine? 

On this subject I am happy to find myself 
sustained by some of the most eminent Armin- 
ians. John Wesley has a sermon on Divine 
Providence, preached from the text, “Even the 
very hairs of your head are all numbered.” He 
says,—“The doctrine of Divine providence has 
been received by wise men in all ages;” and it is 
impossible to use stronger language than he does 
in asserting a particular providence. After as¬ 
serting and proving, that God created all things, 
sustains all things, sees and knows all the pro¬ 
perties of the beings He has made, he writes as ;| 
follows: 

“And is the creator and preserver of the world 
unconcerned in what he sees therein? Does he 





POREORDINATION PROVED. 


61 


look upon these things either with a malignant 
or heedless eye? Is he an Epicurean god? 
Does he sit at ease in the heavens, without re¬ 
garding the poor inhabitants of earth? It can¬ 
not be. He hath made us; not we ourselves; 
and he cannot despise the work of his own hands. 
We are his children: and can a mother forget 
the children of her womb? Yea, she may for¬ 
get; yet will not God forget us! On the con¬ 
trary, he hath expressly declared, that as his 
‘eyes are over all the earth,’ so he ‘is loving 
to every man: and his mercy is over all his 
works.’ Consequently he is concerned every 
moment, for what befalls every creature upon 
earth; and more especially for everything that 
befalls any of the children of men. It is 
hard, indeed, to comprehend this: nay, it is 
hard to believe it; considering the complica¬ 
ted wickedness, and the complicated misery, 
which we see on every side. But believe it 
we must, unless we will make God a liar; al¬ 
though it is sure, no man can comprehend it. 
It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves 
before God, and to acknowledge our ignor¬ 
ance. Indeed, how can we expect that a man 
should be able to comprehend the ways of 
God! Can a worm comprehend a worm? How 


62 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


much less can it be supposed, that a man can 
comprehend God: 

‘ For how can finite measure infinite V ” 

Mr. Wesley very forcibly and conclusively 
exposes the doctrine of a general, but not par¬ 
ticular providence. “You say,” says he, “you 
allow a general providence, but deny & particular. 
And what is a general, of whatever kind it be, 
that includes not particulars? Is not every 
general necessarily made up of its several par¬ 
ticulars? Can you instance in any general that 
is not? Tell me any genus, if you can, that 
contains no species? What is it that constitutes 
a genus, but so many species added together? 
What, I pray, is a whole that contains no parts? 
Mere nonsense and contradiction. Every whole 
must, in the nature of things, be made up of its 
several parts; insomuch that if there be no parts, 
there can be no whole.” Again:—“Do you 
mean (for we would fain find out your meaning, 
if you have any meaning at all,) that the provi¬ 
dence of God does, indeed, extend to all parts 
of the earth, with regard to great and singular 
events; such as the rise and fall of empires; but 
that the little concerns of this or that man are 
beneath the notice of the Almighty? Then you 
do not consider, that great and little are merely 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


63 


relative terms, which have place only with res¬ 
pect to men. With regard to the Most High, 
men, and all the concerns of men, are nothing, 
less than nothing, before him. And nothing is 
small in his sight, that, in any degree, affects 
the welfare of any that fear God and work right¬ 
eousness. What becomes, then, of your general 
providence, exclusive of a particular? Let it 
be forever rejected by all rational men, as ab¬ 
surd, self-contradictory nonsense. We may then 
sum up the whole Scriptural doctrine of provi¬ 
dence, in the fine saying of St. Austin,—‘ Ita 
prcesidet singulis sicut universis , et universis sicut 
singulis .’ 

I am truly gratified to find in the writings of 
Wesley a statement so clear, and a defense so 
conclusive and unanswerable, of the doctrine, 
that the providence of God extends to all things 
and to all events. 

II. God in his providence is simply fidfilling 
his purposes. This truth is so obvious, and the 
denial of it so absurd, that it is scarcely neces¬ 
sary to say a word in confirmation of it. The 
acts of providence, by which individuals are con- 


* He rules over particulars as over universals, and over 
universals as over particulars. 





04 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

trolled and particular events brought to pass, 
are either accidental or designed . But no one, it 
is presumed, could for a moment entertain the 
belief of an accidental providence. All, there¬ 
fore, must admit that whatever God does in the 
government of the world, he does designedly . 
For example, Joseph said to his brethren, “God 
did send me before you to preserve life.”*. Now 
Joseph was sent to Egypt, not by miracle , but 
by the overruling providence of God. If, then, 
God in his providence sent him into Egypt, he 
did it in fulfillment of a previously formed pur¬ 
pose; and therefore it is stated, that the sending 
of Joseph to Egypt was a means to accomplish 
a wise and benevolent end , viz: to preserve life. 
But a wise being first determines upon the end 
he desires to attain, and then upon the best 
means of accomplishing it. God determined to 
preserve the lives of Jacob’s family; and he pur¬ 
posed to send Joseph before them to Egypt for 
the accomplishment of this object. God in his 
providence sent the Jews into captivity at Baby¬ 
lon; but he did so for their good, that in exile 
they might consider their ways and repent. In 
his providence he restored them at the end of 


* Gen. 45: 5. 



FORE ORDINATION PROVED. 65 

seventy years; and he made Cyrus to fulfill his 
gracious purpose. 

But surely I need not argue this point. An 
accidental providence, is an absurdity; and if it 
could exist!, it would neither be good nor wise; 
nor could it afford to the righteous any ground 
of confidence. The Scriptures, therefore, dis¬ 
tinctly teach that God "worketh all things ac¬ 
cording to the counsel of his tv ill;” that although 
the heart of a man deviseth his way, "the Lord 
directeth his steps;” that "his tender mercies 
are over all his works.” In this view Mr. Wes¬ 
ley agrees with Calvinists, as we have already 
seen. He spurns the idea that God looks upon 
his creatures with indifference, and maintains 
most earnestly that he wisely and mercifully 
rules over and cares for them, even the smallest 
of them. 

Now let us pause and determine to what con¬ 
clusion we are constrained to come, from the 
preceding argument. The providence of God 
extends to all things and to all events,—to 
whatsoever cometh to pass; and God is, in his 
providence, simply fulfilling his purposes. In 
both these positions Mr. Wesley agrees with us; 
but from them the conclusion inevitably follows, 

that God hath foreordained whatsoever cometh to 
6 * 


66 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


pass. Look at the premises. If the providence 
of God extends to whatsoever comes to pass; 
and if his providence is nothing more nor less 
than the fulfilling of his purposes; is it not per¬ 
fectly clear, that his purposes extend to what¬ 
ever comes to pass? For illustration, you say 
of an architect, his work extends to every part 
of the building; and in his work he is simply 
carrying out his plans or purposes. Does it not 
follow that his plans extend to every part of the 
building? And is it not then true, that he did 
previously plan what he executed ? One of three 
positions we are compelled to take on this sub¬ 
ject. 1. We may deny a particular providence; 
and then, as Wesley demonstrates, we deny a 
providence altogether. 2. We may hold to an 
accidental providence,—if such a thing be con¬ 
ceivable,—that God in the government of the 
world acts without design, and consequently 
without wisdom or goodness. 3. We may hold 
that he governs all things according to his wise 
counsels, for the accomplishment of his own glo¬ 
rious ends; or, in other words, that he hath fore¬ 
ordained whatsoever cometh to pass. Look 
carefully at the positions, and see whether you 
are not obliged to take one of the three; and if 
so, choose between them. Which is Scriptural? 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


67 


Which is most honorable to God? Which is 
safest and most encouraging to the righteous? 
I verily believe, that no Christian will long hes¬ 
itate which of the propositions he must choose. 

III. The purposes of God are eternal. To 
this proposition, if the two preceding are admit¬ 
ted, there can be no objection. For if it be in 
perfect consistency with the wisdom and good¬ 
ness of God, that his purposes should extend to 
all things and events; why should not those 
purposes have been formed before the creation 
of the world? Who ever charged it as crime 
against a man, that he had too soon determined 
to do a good work? If it was wise and merciful 
in our Heavenly Father to send Joseph into 
Egypt, who can say it is inconsistent with his 
perfections that he always designed to do this 
wise and good act? And if the fact that God 
has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, either 
destroys man’s free agency or makes him the 
author of sin, (and these questions will be fully 
examined in another chapter,) these results fol¬ 
low as certainly if the decrees are formed one 
hour or one moment before they are executed, as 
if they were formed before the beginning of time. 
If the free agency of Cyrus was destroyed by 
God’s foreordaining that he should take Babylon 


68 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


and restore the Jews, it matters not whether 
that decree was formed at the moment when 
Isaiah recorded it, or ten thousand ages before. 

But that all the purposes of God are eternal, 
is clear from the following considerations: 

1. He is infinitely wise , knowing all things,— 
past, present and future; all things possible , 
as well as all things real. The declarations 
of the Scriptures on this subject are as strong 
as language can make them. “Known unto 
God are all his works from the beginning of 
the world;” or, as the Rev. Richard Watson, 
a standard Methodist writer, happily gives the 
sense of the passage,—“Rather ap aionos , from 
all eternity,—known, before they were made, in 
their possible , and known, now they are made, in 
their actual existence.“Great is the Lord, 
and of great power: his understanding is infi¬ 
nite.”^ Arminians have no difficulty in admit¬ 
ting that God knows, with infinite accuracy, all 
things and events that are past or present, and 
all those yet future, not dependent upon, or im¬ 
mediately connected with the free actions of 
accountable beings. But they have been accus¬ 
tomed to assert, that the doctrine of Divine 


*Theol. Inst. pt. 2, ch. 4. 


fPs. 147: 5. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


69 


decrees is destructive of the free agency and 
accountability of man; and many of them have 
felt an equal difficulty in reconciling the Divine 
foreknowledge with free agency. I am happy 
to be able, on this point, to call in the aid of 
the distinguished Methodist writer just now 
quoted,—especially as his Theological Institutes 
are considered by the Methodists a standard 
work. Some Arminians have held, that “it is a 
matter of choice in God to think of finite ideas.” 
“In substance,” says Mr. Watson, “these opin¬ 
ions are, that though the knowledge of God be 
infinite, as his power is infinite, there is no more 
reason to conclude that his knowledge should 
be always exerted to the full extent of its capa¬ 
city, than that his power should be employed to 
the extent of his omnipotence; and that if we 
suppose him to choose not to know some contin¬ 
gencies, the infiniteness of his knowledge is not 
thereby impugned.” To this Mr. Watson gives 
the following conclusive answer: “1. That the 
infinite power of God is in Scripture represented, 
as in the nature of things it must be, as an infinite 
capacity , and not as infinite in act; but that the 
hioivledge of God is, on the contrary, never rep¬ 
resented there to us as a capacity to acquire 
knowledge, but as actually comprehending all 


70 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

tilings that are, and all things that can be. 
2. That the notion of God’s choosing to know 
some things, and not to know others, supposes a 
reason why he refuses to know any class of things 
or events, which reason, it would seem, can only 
arise out of their nature and circumstances, and 
therefore supposes at least a partial knowledge 
of them, from which the reason for his not 
choosing to know them arises. The doctrine is 
therefore somewhat contradictory.” 

A second theory, stated by Watson, is “that 
the foreknowledge of contingent events, being in 
its own nature impossible, because it implies a 
contradiction, it does no dishonor to the Divine 
Being to affirm that of such events he has and 
can have no prescience whatever; and thus the 
prescience of God as to moral actions being 
wholly denied, the difficulty of reconciling it 
with human freedom and accountability has no 
existence.” To this and the foregoing theory 
Mr. Watson gives the following unanswerable 
refutation: “To this the same answer must be 
given as to the former. It does not meet the 
case, so long as the Scriptures are allowed to 
contain prophecies of rewardable and punishable 
actions. That man is accountable to God for 
his conduct, and therefore free, that is, laid 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


71 


under no invincible necessity of acting in a given 
manner, are doctrines clearly contained in the 
Bible; and the notion of necessity has here its 
foil and satisfactory reply; but if a difficulty 
should be felt in reconciling the freedom of an 
action with the prescience of it, it affords not the 
slightest relief to deny the foreknowledge of 
God as to actions in general, while the Scrip¬ 
tures contain predictions of the conduct of men 
whose actions cannot have been determined by 
invincible necessity, because they were actions 
for which they received from God a just and 
marked punishment. Whether the scheme of 
relief be that the knowledge of God, like his 
power, is arbitrary, or that the prescience of con¬ 
tingencies is impossible, so long as the Scrip¬ 
tures are allowed to contain predictions of the 
conduct of men, good or bad, the difficulty re¬ 
mains in all its force. The whole body of pro¬ 
phecy is founded on the prescience of contingent 
actions, or it is not prediction, but guess and 
conjecture,—to such fearful results does the 
denial of the Divine prescience lead.”* 

It is, then, clear from the Scriptures, and Mr. 
Watson admits and proves it, that God knows 


*Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 4. 



72 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


all the past, the present, and the future. The 
conclusion to which we must come, in view of 
this doctrine, is that the purposes of God are 
eternal. For intelligent purposes are not form¬ 
ed at random, but are founded upon knowledge. 
Therefore every new purpose formed by a ra¬ 
tional being, and every change of purpose, must 
be founded on new knowledge gained. A man 
determines to-day to go on a journey to a dis¬ 
tant city, or to enter upon an extensive specu¬ 
lation. Why is this purpose formed to-day and 
not before? Because he has gained information 
to-day which he had not yesterday. Or, having 
last week determined to go to Boston, he this 
week changes his purpose. Why? Because 
he has views now, which he had not when the 
purpose was formed. Every new purpose form¬ 
ed, therefore, and every change of purpose, pro¬ 
claims the imperfection of him who forms or 
changes the purpose. His knowledge was im¬ 
perfect; he has learned something new, and, 
therefore, has formed a new purpose, or aban¬ 
doned one previously formed. But God learns 
nothing new. All the reasons in view of which 
his purposes were formed, were before the Divine 
Mind, and were perfectly understood from eter¬ 
nity. There can be nothing, consequently, on 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


73 


which a new purpose can be founded; and to 
maintain that he forms new purposes, is to 
maintain that he is an imperfect Being,—that 
he does not know all things. 

2. When the inspired writers speak of the 
formation of the Divine purposes , they speak of 
them as eternal. Is Jesus Christ sent into the 
world to save men? He “verily was foreordain¬ 
ed before the foundation of the world.”* Does 
God bless his children with all spiritual bless¬ 
ings? He does so “according as he hath chosen 
us in him, before the foundation of the world.”f 
Does he call and save them? He does so “ac¬ 
cording to his own purpose and grace, which was 
given us in Christ Jesus before the world be¬ 
gan. Will he display his manifold wisdom by 
his Church? He will do it “according to the 
eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ.”|| 

Now let us put these three propositions to¬ 
gether, and see to what conclusion we are obliged 
to come. The providence of God extends to all 
things and all events. God in his providence is 
simply fulfilling his purposes. Therefore his 
purposes extend to all things and all events. 


* 1 Pet. 1: 20. fEph. 1: 4. }2Tim, 1: 9. 
|| Eph. 3: 11. 



74 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


Iiis purposes are eternal. Therefore he from 
eternity purposed to do what in time he is doing. 
That is, he from eternity foreordained whatso¬ 
ever comes to pass. 

“ Ten thousand ages ere the skies 
Were into motion brought; 

All the long years and worlds to come, 

Stood present to his thought. 

There’s not a sparrow nor a worm, 

But’s found in his decrees, 

He raises monarchs’ to their thrones, 

And sinks them as he please.” 




CHAPTER IV. 


OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE FOREORDINATION 
ANSWERED, AND THE INCONSISTENCIES OF ARMINIANISM 
POINTED OUT. 

The evidence appears conclusive, that, accord¬ 
ing to the Scriptures, God hath foreordained 
whatsoever cometh to pass. Against this doc¬ 
trine, however, several objections are urged. Let 
us give them a careful consideration. 

1. This doctrine, it is confidently affirmed, is 
inconsistent with the free agency and accounta¬ 
bility of man. Those who press this objection, 
must, if they are consistent, hold the doctrine of 
man’s free agency,—must believe that such is 
the nature of the human mind, that it is capable 
of choosing and refusing. Free Agency is noth¬ 
ing more nor less than acting without compulsion, 
and in accordance with one's desires or inclinations. 
The mind is free, if it is capable of considering 
the motives to action which may be placed be¬ 
fore it, and of choosing its own course. The 
word motives is sometimes used to signify the 
reasons or inducements placed before the mind, 
tending to lead to certain choices or actions; 
and sometimes, to designate the feelings under 





76 G0I) SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

which men make certain choices, or perform cer¬ 
tain actions. Used in the former sense, that : 
which would he a powerful motive in the view of ' 
one mind, would be no motive at all in the view 
of another. The offer of a bribe would be a suf- ! 
ficient motive to induce one judge to decide a 
case contrary to law and evidence; whilst to » 
another, such an offer, so far from being a mo- 
tive to such a course, would be highly offensive. 
The temptation presented by Potiphar’s wife, 
which was firmly resisted by Joseph, would have i 
been a motive of sufficient power to have ruined 
many a youth of less purity of heart. An exter¬ 
nal motive can have no influence over the choices 
and conduct of men, except as it makes an ap¬ 
peal to feelings existing in the mind; and all 
the affections of the human heart are, in their 
very nature, free. The idea of compelling a man 
either to love or to hate any object, is perfectly I 
absurd. We hold, then, that man is, from the 
very nature of his mind, a free moral agent,— 
that he is capable of looking at all the motives 
presented before him, and of acting, in view of 
them all, freely and without compulsion. That : 
every one will choose what, on the whole, he 
prefers, is certain. To assert the opposite, would 
be a contradiction in terms. It would be the 1 







FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


77 


same as to say, that the mind chooses what, on 
the whole, it does not prefer, or does not choose. 
But all the choices of the intelligent mind are 
free and unconstrained. 

Now if man!§ free agency is destroyed in any 
case, it must ke by some force ab extra—from 
without , which is brought to bear upon the mind. 
This will not be disputed. Suppose, then, the 
doctrine true, that God has foreordained what¬ 
ever comes to pass, does this foreordination bring 
such a force to operate on the mind? 

The government of the world, as we remarked 
in a preceding chapter, is naturally divided into 
the government of matter and of mind. Amongst 
men there are two classes,—the righteous and 
the wicked. As we have proved, God is, in an 
important sense, the author of all the pure affec¬ 
tions and virtuous actions of men. The righteous 
are declared to be “his workmanship, created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works.”* And “it is 
God which worketh in you both to will and to 
do of his good pleasure.”! And concerning all 
that is truly good in any man, he must say, with 
the Apostle Paul,—“But by the grace of God I 
am what I am.”! Now, that God can and does 


* Eph. 2: 10. 

7 * 


f Phil. 2: IS. 11 Cor. 15: 10. 



78 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


exert on the minds of men a supernatural puri¬ 
fying influence, producing virtuous affections and 
prompting to virtuous actions, the more evan¬ 
gelical class of Arminians admit and teach. In 
the Articles of Religion adopte^y the Metho¬ 
dist Episcopal Church, we find the following lan¬ 
guage: “The condition of man after the fall of 
Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare 
himself, by his own natural strength and works, 
to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we 
have no power to do good works, pleasant and 
acceptable to God, without the grace of God by 
Christ preventing us, that we may have a good 
will, and working with us when we have that 
good will.” This influence of Divine grace, as 
our Methodist brethren believe, results in multi¬ 
tudes of instances in the conversion of men from 
the service of Sin and Satan to the service of God; 
and they of course hold, that the free agency of 
the persons is not thereby destroyed or impaired. 
They therefore agree with us, that God can and 
does exert upon the minds of men a supernatu¬ 
ral influence, which in a great number of instan¬ 
ces results in their regeneration, and that their 
free agency is left unimpaired. Now, the only 
question necessary to be decided here is, whether 
without interfering with the free agency of men, 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


79 


God can exert such an influence as will certainly 
lead to conversion in all cases where it is put 
forth; for if he can, he can fulfill all his purposes 
concerning the salvation of men without inter¬ 
fering with theft freedom. Mr. A., for example, 
under the prfeiching of the gospel, was convicted 
of sin, and, in a few days, became a converted 
man and a happy Christian. Our Methodist 
brethren will agree with us in ascribing his con¬ 
viction and his regeneration to the supernatural 
influence of the Holy Spirit. The influence 
which God graciously exerted on his mind, was 
sufficient, and God knew it would be sufficient, 
to lead him to Christ. But here is Mr. B. Can 
God, without interfering with his free agency, 
exert upon his mind an influence which will lead 
to the same result? Who will venture to say, 
he cannot? Perhaps it will be said, a more pow¬ 
erful influence will be necessary to bring Mr. B. 
to repentance, than was required in the case of 
Mr. A. Let us for the present admit that it 
may be so. Then the matter presents itself to 
us thus:—that Divine influence which is neces¬ 
sary to bring the mind of Mr. A. to a certain 
state, is perfectly consistent with his free agency; 
but that Divine influence, somewhat greater, 
which is necessary to bring the mind of Mr. B. 


80 GOD sovereign and man free. 

to the same state, is destructive of his free agen¬ 
cy. Now, upon what principle of philosophy or 
of Scripture can any one make such an assertion? 
Is it not evident, that if the greater influence on 
the mind of Mr. B. would destroy his freedom of 
choice, the lesser influence on the mind of Mr. A. 
would produce the same effect,—the only differ¬ 
ence being, that the freedom of the latter is more 
easily destroyed than that of the former? 

But all that is said about the destruction of 
man’s free agency by Divine influence, is mere 
assertion without a particle of evidence. No 
man knows hoiv the Spirit operates on the human 
heart; and therefore no man can possibly know 
how far such operation is consistent with freedom 
of choice. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, 
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst 
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; 
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”* The 
Scriptures nowhere authorize the assertion, that 
God cannot quicken whom he will; and all as¬ 
sertions of the kind are both unfounded and 
irreverent. Admitting, as our Methodist friends 
do, a supernatural influence terminating in many 
case& in the regeneration of men, it certainly 


* John 3: 8. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


81 


devolves on them to prove that God cannot, 
without impairing their freedom, exert an influ¬ 
ence which will so result in all cases. We might, 
then, with propriety ask them to tell us precisely 
what amount or degree of supernatural influence 
is consistent with free agency. Can any one fix 
the limit? If not, how can he determine when 
that limit is passed? 

So far, then, as the virtuous affections and ac¬ 
tions of men are concerned, the doctrine of Divine 
Decrees is not liable to the charge of destroying 
the free agency of man. Indeed the language 
of the Scriptures is calculated to rebuke ail such 
attempts to limit the power of Divine grace. 
“We are his workmanship,” says Paul, “created 
in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Regenera¬ 
tion is here represented as a new creation . Does 
the thing created assist in its own creation? Or 
does it require a greater power to perform one 
creative act than another? The same Apostle 
says,—“Even when we were dead in sins, God 
hath quickened us together with Christ.” Does 
the being who is quickened or made alive, assist 
in his own quickening? Did Lazarus co-operate 
in raising himself from the dead? Or does it 
require greater power to impart life to one being 
than to another? But as the discussion of this 


82 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


subject comes more properly under the head of 
Election , the fuller consideration of it will be re¬ 
served for the second part of this work. 

But it is asserted that the doctrine under con¬ 
sideration destroys the free agency of sinners , 
and makes God the author of their sins. And 
in enforcing this objection, the following ques¬ 
tions are pressed, viz: Can anything possibly 
come to pass which God has not foreordained?— 
and, Can anything which he has foreordained fail 
to come to pass? These questions we of course 
answer in the negative; and then we are asked, 
How can men be free in their choices and ac¬ 
tions, when they could do nothing more and 
nothing less than they in fact do? Men often 
confuse their own minds, as well as the minds of 
others, by using, with reference to the exercises 
of the mind, language which is borrowed from 
material bodies. If it is said, that nothing can 
happen which was not foreordained, the idea of 
compulsory influence is immediately attached to 
the words can and cannot . But our Arminian 
brethren, at least many of them, believe that 
God does with infinite certainty foreknow all the 
events that will ever come to pass, the free ac¬ 
tions of men as well as all others. Now let us 
ask them the same questions they press upon 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


83 


our attention, viz: Can anything possibly come 
to pass which God has not foreknown?—and, 
Can anything fail to come to pass which he has 
foreknown? They must answer these questions 
in the negative; and then we may ask them, 
How then can the choices and actions of men 
he free, when they do only what was infallibly 
foreknown, and what, therefore, they could not 
but do? » 

But all such reasoning is fallacious. As we 
have already remarked, if the free agency of men 
is destroyed, it must be by some external force 
brought to act upon their minds, which are natu¬ 
rally free. The question then arises,—Does the 
doctrine of Divine foreordination imply any such 
force upon the minds of wicked men? Or in 
other words,—Can God exert upon the minds of 
wicked men such an influence as to bring to pass 
by their instrumentality his own wise and holy 
purposes without interfering with their free agen¬ 
cy and just accountability? If any one assert 
that he cannot, we ask him to prove the truth 
of his assertion, either from reason or from the 
Bible. 

As we have already stated, God, in order to 
fulfill his purposes, exerts upon the minds of sin¬ 
ful men a restraining influence, a softening influ- 


84 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


ence, a directing influence, and a hardening influ¬ 
ence. Now let us inquire, whether by either of 
these influences the free agency of men is de¬ 
stroyed or impaired. 

God often restrains men from doing that to 
which their natural appetites or passions strongly 
incline them. Thrice in the year all the males 
of the Jews were required to attend the annual 
festivals in Jerusalem. To encourage them to 
do this, God said,—“For I will cast out the na¬ 
tions before thee, and enlarge thy borders: nei¬ 
ther shall any man desire thy land, when thou 
shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God 
thrice in the year.”* On this passage, Matthew 
Henry has the following note: “All hearts are 
in God’s hands, and under his check; he can lay 
a restraint not only upon men’s actions, but 
upon then: desires. Canaan was a desirable land, 
and the neighboring nations were greedy enough; 
and yet God says ‘they shall not desire it.’ ” 
Abimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah, 
Abraham’s wife, whilst they sojourned with 
him. And when he protested that he was not 
aware of doing what was unlawful, God said,— 
“Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integ- 


* Exod. 34: 24. 




FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


85 


rity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from 
sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not 
to touch her.”* On this passage, Henry thus 
appropriately remarks: “It is God that restrains 
men from doing the ill they would do; it is not 
from him that there is sin, but it is from him 
that there is not more sin, either by his influence 
upon men’s minds, checking their inclination to 
sin, or by his providence, taking away the oppor¬ 
tunity to sin.” God purposed that Abraham 
and his wife should dwell safely in Gerar; and 
therefore, whilst he permitted the king to send 
to take Sarah to his palace, he restrained him 
from proceeding further. Now in what manner 
God exerted this restraining influence, we cannot 
comprehend; and, therefore, it is impossible for 
us to have any evidence that it interfered with 
Abimelech’s freedom of choice. But since the 
Scriptures clearly teach that such an influence 
was exerted, the objection that it interferes with 
free agency would be against the Scriptures 
themselves, not simply against Calvinism; and 
therefore it is an objection which cannot be con¬ 
sistently urged by those who believe in the in¬ 
spiration of the Bible. 


* Gen. 20: G. 


8 



80 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


2. God often exerts oil men what may be 
called a softening influence, disposing them to 
do what is according to his will and for the glory 
of his name. Thus he gave Joseph favor with 
the keeper of the prison where he was confined. 
Thus, in order to fulfill his decree concerning 
the restoration of the Jews and the rebuilding of 
the temple, he “stirred up the spirit of Cyrus 
king of Persia,” that he made a proclamation 
throughout all his kingdom, in which he used 
the following remarkable language: “The Lord 
God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms 
of the earth; and he hath charged me to build 
him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 
Who is there among you of all his people? his 
God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusa¬ 
lem, which is in Judah, and build the house of 
the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) which 
is in Jerusalem.”* And at a later period, God 
put it into the heart of Artaxerxes to beautify 
the temple, and to favor the labors of EzraJ 
It matters not, so far as the doctrine of Divine 
Decrees is concerned, what instrumentalities were 
employed in affecting the hearts of these sinful 
men. The fact is clear, that God had certain 


* Ezra 1 : 1-3. 


| Ezra 7: 27, 28. 




FOREO KOI NATION PltOVJfiD. 


87 


important purposes to accomplish, and that he 
brought such influences to bear upon their minds, 
that they aided in the fulfillment of his purposes. 
How these influences were exerted, no one can 
comprehend; and, therefore, no one can have 
the least evidence that they impaired the free 
agency of the men upon whom they were exert¬ 
ed. And if any one persist in asserting the 
incompatibility of such influences with human 
accountability, his controversy is with the Bible, 
not with Calvinism. 

3. God exerts upon men a directing influence. 
The same affection or passion in the human mind 
might lead to the performance of any one of fifty 
acts, or to any one of several courses of conduct. 
A man, for example, is ambitious . There are 
many ways in which he may have the prospect 
of gratifying his ambition,—as by the accumu¬ 
lation of wealth, by filling important civil offices, 
by military exploits, by literary attainments, etc. 
Now the peculiar character of his ambition, and 
the circumstances in which he may be placed, 
will determine his course of action; and if God 
in his providence arrange these circumstances, 
he will thereby direct his course of conduct. A 
man is covetous; but there are many ways in 
which his love of money may be gratified. He 


88 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


may labor industriously; he may speculate bold¬ 
ly; he may gamble; he may become a highway 
robber. “The love of money,” says Paul, “is 
the root of all evil.” It is the prolific source 
from which crimes of all kinds proceed. Now, 
what course of conduct a covetous man will pur¬ 
sue, depends upon the influences under which his 
moral character is formed, and the circumstances 
that surround him. We hold not that God pro¬ 
duces avaricious feelings in the heart of such a 
man, but that he gives such direction to his con¬ 
duct that good and not evil shall result. The 
Ishmaelitish merchants who purchased Joseph 
and sold him to Potiphar, were avaricious men; 
but God gave such direction to their conduct, that 
by their instrumentality he sent Joseph into 
Egypt, and thus made them instruments in ful¬ 
filling a most important purpose. 

Now, will any one venture the assertion that 
God cannot exert a directing influence over the 
conduct of wicked men without destroying or 
impairing their free agency? Without under¬ 
standing the nature of that influence, no one can 
assert or deny in the matter; and no one can 
understand it. If, however, any one persist in 
the objection, his quarrel is with the Word of 
God, which teaches abundantly that such influ- 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


89 


ence is exerted. Of this we have given some 
evidence, and will furnish more before closing 
this chapter. 

4. God is said sometimes to harden the hearts 
of men, and thus to accomplish his purposes. 
Concerning Pharaoh, king of Egypt, God said: 
“Even for this same purpose have I raised thee 
up, that I might show my power in thee, and 
that my name might be declared throughout all 
the earth.”* In carrying out this purpose God 
said: “I will harden his heart, that he shall not 
let the people go.”t Pharaoh was a wicked man, 
but was doubtless,like other wicked men,restrain¬ 
ed and softened in some degree by divine influ¬ 
ence. God chose now to withdraw that influence 
and leave him to himself, whilst yet he commanded 
him to let his people go; and thus he hardened his 
heart. But was Pharaoh’s free agency destroyed 
by his being left to his own will ? To say so, would 
be ridiculous; for if the human mind is naturally 
free, it of course never enjoys liberty more com¬ 
plete than when left to itself. And equally ri¬ 
diculous would it be to assert that because he 
was left to his own will, and God overruled his 
wicked designs for good, he was not free. 


*Exod. 9: 16, 


t Exod. -I : 21 . 



90 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

It is, then, perfectly clear, I think, that neither 
of these four classes of Divine influences inter¬ 
feres in the slightest degree with man’s free 
agency and accountability; and by these are all 
the decrees of God connected with the agency of 
wicked men fulfilled. We have abundant evi¬ 
dence in God’s word, that he can and does so 
control wicked men as to bring to pass his pur¬ 
poses. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the 
Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whith¬ 
ersoever he will.”* Now, it will not be pretend¬ 
ed either that kings are not free and accountable 
beings, or that He who can turn the king’s heart 
whithersoever he will, cannot as easily turn the 
hearts of others. “A man’s heart deviseth his 
way: but the Lord directeth his steps.”t If the 
Lord can direct the steps of men, and yet leave 
their hearts free to devise their way, it is clear 
that he can so control their conduct that his 
purposes will be accomplished without infringing 
their liberty. We have in the tenth chapter of 
Isaiah’s prophecy, a remarkable proof and illus¬ 
tration of the harmony of the doctrines of Divine 
Decrees and Free Agency. “0 Assyrian, the 
rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is 


*Prov. 21: 1. 


) Prov. 16: 9. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


91 


mine indignation. I will send him against a 
hypocritical nation, and against the people of 
my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the 
spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them 
down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he 
meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; 
but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off na¬ 
tions not a few. For he saith, Are not my 
princes altogether kings? etc. Wherefore it 
shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath 
performed his whole work upon Mount Zion and 
on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout 
heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of 
his high looks. For he saith, By the strength 
of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; 
for I am prudent, etc. Shall the axe boast itself 
against him that heweth therewith? or shall the 
saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? 
as if the rod should shake itself against them 
that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up 
itself, as if it were no wood.” What is the ob¬ 
vious meaning of this language? It does most 
unequivocally teach, in the first place, that the 
king of Assyria, though a proud and ungodly 
man, was an instrument in the hands of God, 
just as the axe, the saw, or the rod in the hands 
of a man, to execute his purposes upon the Jews; 


92 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


and that God had perfect control of him. It 
teaches, in the second place, that the free agency 
of the king was not destroyed or impaired by 
this control, but that he was perfectly free to 
form his own plans and to be governed by his 
own desires. For it is declared that he did not 
design to execute God’s purposes, but to pro¬ 
mote his own ambitious projects. “Iiowbeit he 
meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; 
but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off na¬ 
tions not a few.” It consequently teaches, 
thirdly, that the king was justly held accounta¬ 
ble for his pride and wickedness, although God 
so overruled him that he fulfilled his wise pur¬ 
poses. God decreed to chastise the Jews for 
their sin. He chose to employ the king of As¬ 
syria to execute his purpose, and therefore sent 
him against them. He would afterwards punish 
the king for his wicked plans. Is it not evident, 
then, beyond all cavil, that the Scriptures teach 
that God can and does so control men, even 
wicked men, as to bring to pass his wise pur¬ 
poses without interfering with their free agency? 
The objection we are considering is, therefore, 
wholly without force. 

Again: The Scriptures contain many exam¬ 
ples both confirmatory and illustrative of the 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


93 


truth that God can and does fulfill his purposes 
by the instrumentality of even wicked men, and 
consequently of the consistency of Divine De¬ 
crees and Free Agency. One of the most 
remarkable of these examples is found in the 
history of Jacob’s family, already referred to. 
Let us look, first, at the decree, and then at its 
fulfillment, God said to Abram,—“Know of a 
surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land 
that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and 
they shall afflict them four hundred years. And 
also that nation whom they shall serve, will I 
judge: and afterward shall they come out with 
great substance.”* Here is the decree . The 
descendants of Abraham were to go and sojourn, 
and be afflicted in Egypt, How was this decree 
fulfilled? There are a number of links in the 
chain of its fulfillment. The first is the partial¬ 
ity manifested by Jacob for Joseph, the son of 
his old age. The second link is the consequent 
hatred of Joseph’s brethren. The third is his 
dreams, which increased their hatred. The fourth 
is his being sent by his father to see how they 
were doing, and his following them to the place 
to which they had removed their flocks. When 


* Gen. 15: 13, 14. 



94 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


they saw him coming, they conspired to murder 
him, but were prevented by Reuben. He was 
placed in a pit; and just then came along Ish- 
maelitish merchants going to Egypt. Joseph is 
sold to them, and by them to Potiphar, an officer 
of Pharaoh. He is slandered and thrown into 
prison, where, the Lord giving him favor with 
the keeper, he meets with Pharaoh’s two ser¬ 
vants, and interprets their dreams; and thus 
ultimately he becomes known to Pharaoh, and 
becomes the second man in authority in Egypt. 

Now Joseph said, that God sent him to Egypt 
to preserve many lives* He sent him in ful¬ 
fillment of a benevolent purpose. How did he 
send him? By the instrumentality of a number 
of persons, good and bad. God permitted his 
brethren to hate him. He so ordered things, 
that the merchants passed along just at the 
proper time, and were going to the country to 
which he purposed to send Joseph; and he per¬ 
mitted them to sell him. Link after link of the 
chain of events is formed, and everything is over¬ 
ruled to the entire fulfillment of God’s purpose. 
And yet it will not be pretended, that Joseph’s 
brethren, and the others who were actors in this 


*Gpn. 45: 7. 



FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


95 


chain of events, were deprived of their freedom, 
nor that their guilt was at all diminished by the 
fact that God brought great good out of their 
intended evil. Joseph said to them,—“But as 
for you, ye thought evil against me; but God 
meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this 
day, to save much people alive.”* In the exer¬ 
cise of their free agency they formed their pur¬ 
poses, and they were evil; but God also had his 
purposes, and they were good. They deserved 
condemnation, and they condemned themselves 
for their sin; but God was to be praised for his 
merciful designs. Throughout this interesting 
history, we have the most striking illustrations 
of the perfect harmony of divine sovereignty and 
free agency. It is truly astonishing that any 
one who has ever read it with attention, should 
urge the objection we are now considering. 

Mr. Watson says, “it was predicted that Baby¬ 
lon should be taken by Cyrus in the midst of a 
midnight revel, in which the gates should be left 
unguarded and open;” and he argues, that “all 
the actions which arose out of the warlike dispo¬ 
sition and ambition of Cyrus,” were foreknown, 
“because the result of them was predicted.”! 


*Gen. 50: 20. 


fTheol. Inst., pt. 2 , ch. 4. 



96 GOD sovereign and man free. 

Now it is rather singular, that it did not occur 
to Mr. Watson, that the taking of Babylon by 
Cyrus was not predicted simply as an event 
which God foresaiv , but as an event which he 
had foreordained . Of the destruction of Baby¬ 
lon, Isaiah employs the following language:— 
“The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son 
of Amoz did see. Lift ye up a banner upon the 
high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake 
the hand, that they may go into the gates of the 
nobles. I have commanded my sanctified ones, 
I have also called my mighty ones for mine an¬ 
ger, even them that rejoice in my highness. The 
noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of 
a great people; a tumultuous noise of the king¬ 
doms of nations gathered together: the Lord of 
hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They 
come from a far country, from the end of heaven, 
even the Lord, and the weapons of his indigna¬ 
tion, to destroy the whole land.”* Again:— 
“For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord 
of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and 
remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord. 
I will also make it a possession for the bittern, 
and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the 


*ls=ai. 13: 1-5. 



KOREORD1NATION PROVED. 97 

besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts. 
The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as 
I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as 
I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will 
break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my 
mountains tread him under foot: then shall his 
yoke depart from off them, and his burden de¬ 
part from off their shoulders. This is the pur¬ 
pose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and 
this is the hand that is stretched out upon all 
nations. For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, 
and who shall disannul it? and his hand is 
stretched out, and who shall turn it back?”* 
Jeremiah, describing the same terrible event, 
says:—“For every purpose of the Lord shall be 
performed against Babylon, to make the land of 
Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant.”! 
Not only the destruction of Babylon, but the 
instruments by which, and the manner in which, 
it should be accomplished, were foreordained. 
“Behold,” saith God, “I will stir up the Medes 
against them, which shall not regard silver.” 
“Go up, 0 Elam: besiege, 0 Media,” etc.| Of 
Cyrus, God said:—“He is my shepherd, and 
shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to 


* Isai. 14: 22-27. fJer. 51: 29. \ Isai. 13: 17; 21: 2. 



98 


god sovereign and man free. 


Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the tem¬ 
ple, Thy foundation shall be laid.'’ But before 
Cyrus could restore the Jews, and cause the city 
of Jerusalem and the temple to be rebuilt, he 
must conquer Babylon, and take possession of 
it. And therefore God said:—“Thus saith the 
Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand 
I have holden, to subdue nations before him; 
and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before 
him the two-leaved gates, and the gates shall 
not be shut; I will go before thee, and make 
crooked places straight: I will break in pieces 
the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of 
iron: And I will give thee the treasures of 
darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that 
thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call 
thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For 
Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, 
I have even called thee by thy name: I have 
surnamed thee, though thou hast not known 
me.”* From these and other explicit declara¬ 
tions of prophecy, it is evident beyond all con¬ 
troversy, that the taking of Babylon by an army 
of Medes and Persians, commanded by Cyrus, 
and the return of the Jews to Jerusalem by per- 


* Isaiah 44: 28; 45: 1-4. 



FORKOKDINATION PHOVKJJ. 


99 


mission and decree of Cyrus, were foreordained; 
and so, of course, were all the counsels and acts 
which led to these results. It is certain that 
these events were foreordained; and consequent¬ 
ly we are obliged to conclude, either that the 
doctrines of Divine Decrees and Free Agency 
are perfectly consistent, or that all the persons 
by whose instrumentality these events were 
brought to pass, were deprived of their free 
agency and accountability. Indeed, Mr. Wat¬ 
son himself, forgetting surely what he had else¬ 
where written, admits that “ Cyrus was elected to 
rebuild the temple.”* In making such an ad¬ 
mission, he has unwittingly overthrown the most 
plausible argument urged by Arminians against 
the doctrine of Divine foreordination. For if 
God’s election of Cyrus to fulfill his purposes 
relative to the Jews did not interfere with the 
free agency of Cyrus, the election of any other 
man or number of men to fulfill any other of 
the Divine purposes would leave them as free as 
Cyrus. Our Arminian opponents must either 
deny that God ever foreordained any one event 
brought about by a free agent, or abandon the 
objection we are considering. 


Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 26. 



100 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


The Lord Jesus Christ was crucified by wicked 
men; and yet no one, it would seem, can doubt 
that his crucifixion was foreordained. Upon that 
event hung the hopes of a lost world. Every 
bleeding victim on the Jewish altar foretold the 
sufferings of the great Antitype, and all the 
prophets predicted the great event. Peter de¬ 
clares that he “verily was foreordained before 
the foundation of the world” to this work;* and 
to the Jews he said:—“Him, being delivered by 
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of 
God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have 
crucified and slain.”t And the apostles, in their 
prayer for protection against their persecutors, 
use this remarkable language: “For of a truth 
against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast 
anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with 
the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gath¬ 
ered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand 
and thy counsel determined before to be done.”J 
Precisely in accordance with these declarations, 
is the language of Isaiah:—“Yet it pleased the 
Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief.”|| 
It is absolutely certain that the crucifixion of 


* 1 Pet. 1: 20. 


fActs 2: 23. {Acts 4: 27, 28. 
|| Isai. 53: 10. 



FOREORDI NATION PROVED. 


101 


Christ was foreordained, and that in his cruci¬ 
fixion the Jews and Romans did but fulfill the 
Divine purpose; and yet it is certain that they 
were in the perfect exercise of their free agency. 
The crucifixion of Christ was, therefore, charged 
upon them as a crime; and they were command¬ 
ed to repent of it. They meant evil against 
him; but God intended good. He made the 
wrath of man to praise him; and the remainder 
of wrath he restrained. 

I might multiply, to any extent, examples of 
events certainly foreordained, yet brought to 
pass by the free and accountable agency of men; 
but it is unnecessary. One example is as good 
as ten thousand; for if, in one single instance, 
men have fulfilled the decree of God, and were 
yet free and accountable, it is certain that the 
decrees of God are not inconsistent with man’s 
free agency. The objection we are considering, 
is consequently without the least force. Let it 
be distinctly understood, that they who urge this 
objection must deny that any one event brought 
to pass by the free agency of man, was foreor¬ 
dained! Is any Christian prepared for this? 
Mr. Watson asserts, that the whole body of pro¬ 
phecy is founded upon the prescience of the free 
or contingent acts of men. With more truth he 


102 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

might have said, that the whole body of prophe¬ 
cy was founded on the foreordination of the free 
acts of men; for prophecy is, for the most part, 
but the revelation of God’s purposes concerning 
individuals and nations. 

Here we might let the argument rest; but 
the objection under consideration has been so 
often and so plausibly urged, that we are deter¬ 
mined to sift it to the bottom and expose its 
weakness. 

If God has foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass, it is maintained, man is not a free agent, 
but acts from necessity. As we have more than 
once remarked, if the freedom of the human 
mind is destroyed or impaired, it must be by 
some force from without; because it is naturally 
free. Now what is there in a purpose or decree 
of God, which brings such a force to bear? Let 
us, if you please, analyze a Divine decree, and 
see if we can find in it such a force. In a decree 
of God we may find three things, viz: the decree 
or purpose itself as it exists in the Divine Mind; 
the certainty of the event decreed; and the man¬ 
ner in which, or the influence by which, it is 
brought to pass. 

Let us first consider the decree or purpose 
itself A Divine Decree, as already explained. 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


103 


so far as rational creatures are concerned, is a 
determination by God to dispose them to do 
something good, or to permit and overrule their 
evil acts to his own holy ends. Such a purpose, 
we will say, God has formed. It exists in the 
Divine Mind; but it has not been revealed, nor 
has any single act in accordance with it been 
put forth. Now is it not self-evident, that so 
long as that purpose remains in the Divine Mind, 
not revealed nor acted upon, it cannot bring a 
force to bear upon the mind of any man? If 
God had even determined to influence or dispose 
Pharaoh to hate and oppress the Israelites, still 
that purpose could not have affected his free 
agency, until some act was put forth. The pur¬ 
pose itself effects nothing, just as the purpose of 
a man to build a house effects nothing until 
some act is put forth in accordance with the 
purpose. This is too plain to require illustra¬ 
tion, or to admit of proof. 

But it may be said, if God has decreed an 
event, it will certainly come to pass; and if it is 
certain and cannot be otherwise, how can man 
be free to act or not to act in reference to it? 
To this objection we have two answers to make: 
1. There is no force in mere certainty; and there¬ 
fore the simple fact that an event will certainly 


104 GOD sovereign and man free. 

happen, cannot put a force upon the mind which 
will destroy or impair its liberty. 2. If the 
certainty of a future event is inconsistent with 
the free agency of those employed in bringing it 
to pass, then the foreknowledge of God destroys 
that free agency; for whatever actions or events 
are foreknown, will certainly come to pass. The 
Saviour foreknew that Judas would betray him; 
for “as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto 
you, that one of you shall betray me.” # And 
he foreknew that Peter would deny him; for he 
said to him, “Verily, I say unto thee, that this 
night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me 
thrice.”t Both these events were absolutely 
certain. The former, indeed, was foretold a 
thousand years before Judas was born.J Was 
the free agency of Judas and Peter destroyed? 
They certainly did not think so, for Judas said: 
“I have sinned in that I have betrayed the in¬ 
nocent blood.”|| “And Peter remembered the 
word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the 
cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he 
went out, and wept bitterly.”§ The crucifixion 
of Christ was foreknown and foretold; and Paul 


Matt. 26: 21. fMatt. 26: 34. {Acts 1: 16. 
|| Matt. 27: 4. §Matt. 26: 75. 



KORKORDI NATION PROVKD. 


105 


says:-—“They that dwell at Jerusalem, and their 
rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the 
voices of the prophets which are read every Sab¬ 
bath-day, they have fulfilled them in condemn¬ 
ing him. And when they had fulfilled all that 
was written of him, they took him down from 
the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.”* Did 
the certainty of his crucifixion destroy or impair 
the freedom of those who fulfilled, though they 
knew it not, all that was written of him? It is 
clear as the shining light, that the certainty of a 
future event interferes not with the free agency 
of those by whose instrumentality it will be 
brought to pass. 

Here again we are happy to call to our aid 
Rev. Richard Watson, who, as we have seen, 
contends earnestly and conclusively for the doc¬ 
trine, that God does certainly foreknow all the 
free actions of his creatures, and unanswerably 
refutes the absurd and mischievous theories of 
Dr. Adam Clarke and others, who deny such 
prescience. “The whole body of prophecy,” he 
remarks, “is founded on the certain prescience 
of contingent actions, or it is not prediction, but 
guess and conjecture,—to such fearful results 


* Arts 13: 27 ; 29. 




100 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

does the denial of the Divine prescience lead! 
No one can deny that the Bible contains predic¬ 
tions of the rise and fall of several kingdoms; 
that Daniel, for instance, prophesied of the rise, 
the various fortune, and the fall of the celebrated 
monarchies of antiquity. But empires do not 
rise and fall wholly by immediate acts of God; 
they are not thrown up like new islands in the 
ocean, they do not fall like cities in an earth¬ 
quake, by the direct exertion of Divine power. 
They are carried through their various stages of 
advance and decline, by the virtues and vices of 
men, which God makes the instruments of their 
prosperity or destruction. Counsels, wars, science, 
revolutions, all crowd in their agency; and the 
predictions are of the combined and ultimate re¬ 
sults of all these circumstances, which, as arising 
out of the vices and virtues of men, out of innu¬ 
merable acts of choice, are contingent. Seen they 
must have been through all their stages, and 
seen in their results, for prophecy has registered 
those results. The prescience of them cannot 
be denied, for that is on record; and if certain 
prescience involves necessity, then are the daily 
virtues and vices of men not contingent. It 
was predicted that Babylon should be taken by 
Cyrus in the midst of a midnight revel, in which 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


107 


the gates should be left unguarded and open. 
Now, if all the actions which arose out of the 
warlike disposition and ambition of Cyrus were 
contingent, what becomes of the principle that it 
is impossible to foreknow contingencies? # * * 
Our Lord predicts most circumstantially, the de¬ 
struction of Jerusalem by the Romans. If this 
be allowed, then the contingencies involved in 
the conduct of the Jews who provoked that fatal 
war,—in the Roman Senate who decreed it,— 
in the Roman Generals who carried it on,—in 
the Roman and Jewish soldiers who were enga¬ 
ged in it,—were all foreseen , and the result of 
them predicted; if they were not contingencies, 
that is, if they were not free actions, then the 
virtues and vices of both parties, and all the acts 
of skill, and courage, and enterprise, and all the 
cruelties and sufferings of the besieged and the 
besiegers, arising out of innumerable volitions, 
and giving rise to the events so circumstantially 
marked in the prophecy, were determined by an 
irreversible necessity.” Mr. Watson concludes, 
that “though an uncertain action cannot be fore¬ 
seen as certain, a free, unnecessitated action 
may; for there is nothing in the knowledge of 
the action, in the least, to affect its nature.”* 


*Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 4. 



108 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


The certainty of a future event, then, as Mr. 
Watson agrees with Calvinists, cannot interfere 
with the freedom of those by whose agency it is 
brought to pass. 

The only other thing in a Divine decree is the 
manner in which, or the agency by which the 
event decreed is brought to pass. And if the 
doctrine of Divine Decrees is destructive of free 
agency, this is the point where the difficulty 
occurs. Here, if anywhere, a compulsory force 
is brought to bear upon the mind. Indeed it is 
only the certainty that the necessary means will, 
in due time, be employed, that makes any fore¬ 
ordained event certain. All the purposes of God 
concerning men are fulfilled either by his provi¬ 
dence or by his regenerating and sanctifying grace. 
Christ Jesus is “head over all things to the 
Church;” and the Holy Spirit is sent to convince 
and convert men, that they may enter the Church. 
All God’s purposes, therefore, are fulfilled by 
that particular providence which, as we have seen, 
extends to all things and to all events, or by 
- that blessed Spirit who works in his people to 
will and do. 

The whole matter, therefore, resolves itself 
into the two questions: 1 . Can God exercise 
over men a particular providence , so as to bring 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


109 


to pass his wise purposes , without destroying or 
impairing their free agency ? 2. Can God exert 

upon the minds of men , providentially and by his 
Spirit , a Divine influence that zvill certainly lead 
them to Christ, and induce them to persevere in 
his service , without interfering ivith their liberty ? 
These questions have already been answered. 
We have seen, that the providence of God ex¬ 
tends to all things and events, and that he can 
so govern even wicked men as to fulfill his pur¬ 
poses without interfering with their freedom of 
choice. We have seen, too, that he does exert 
on the minds of men a supernatural sanctifying 
influence, “working in them to will and to do of 
his good pleasure,” yet leaving their free agency 
unimpaired. It is clear, therefore, that the de¬ 
crees of God do not interfere with the free agen¬ 
cy of men. 

It has been too generally admitted, I cannot 
but think, by Calvinists, that we cannot recon¬ 
cile the doctrines of Divine Decrees and Free 
Agency. It has been common to insist, that 
since both these doctrines are taught in the 
Scriptures, they are certainly true, and therefore 
consistent, and ought to be received, though 
we, with our limited powers and knowledge, can¬ 
not see how they harmonize. This position is 
10 


110 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


certainty tenable; for there evidently are many 
things presented in nature and in revelation, 
which, as to the mode of their being, and as to 
their consistency with other things equally clear, 
are above human comprehension. But it is not 
wise to admit even an apparent inconsistency in 
the doctrines under consideration, unless truth 
and candor require it. 

Now I cheerfully admit, that there is in this 
general subject something to us incomprehensi¬ 
ble; but I insist, and am prepared to prove, that 
the difficulty lies, not against the points on 
which Arminians differ from us, but against 
those in reference to which they agree with us. 
That a mere purpose existing in the Divine 
Mind, not yet revealed or acted out, cannot in¬ 
terfere with the free agency of any one, is self- 
evident; for it brings no force of any kind to 
bear upon the mind. It is equally clear, that 
the mere certainty of a future event does not 
impair the freedom of those by whose agency it 
will be brought to pass. The certainty that Cy¬ 
rus would take Babylon, did not interfere with 
his free agency in planning and executing his 
wars. The certainty that Peter would deny his 
Lord, did not interfere with his liberty and ac¬ 
countability in that act. On this point, as we 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


Ill 


have seen, Rev. Richard Watson precisely agrees 
with us. If, then, the free agency of men is 
destroyed, this is done not by the Divine pur¬ 
poses abstractly considered, nor by the certainty 
of the events decreed, but by the influences by 
which those purposes are fulfilled . But all the 
purposes of God concerning men, are fulfilled 
either by his particular providence or by the re¬ 
newing and sanctifying influence of the Holy 
Spirit. The question, therefore, concerning the 
consistency of Divine Decrees and Free Agency, 
as already remarked, resolves itself into the two 
following questions, viz: 1. Can God exercise 
over men a particular providence without inter¬ 
fering with their freedom? 2. Can he renew 
and sanctify the hearts of men without impair¬ 
ing their liberty? The first of these questions 
Rev. John Wesley, the father of Methodism, an¬ 
swers in the affirmative, as we have already 
shown, strongly insisting upon the doctrine of a 
particular providence over all men and things. 
And Rev. Richard Watson contends for the re¬ 
newing influence of the Holy Spirit. Precisely 
at this point the difficulty occurs. Let any one 
explain to me, how a particular providence and 
a divine influence on the hearts of men are con¬ 
sistent with free agency, and I pledge myself to 


112 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE, 

explain how the doctrine of divine purposes is 
consistent with free agency. IIow did God so 
order things that Cyrus took Babylon and re-* 
stored the Jews, without interfering with the 
liberty of those who fulfilled his purposes? How 
did he send Joseph into Egypt without impair^ 
ing the liberty of those by whose instrumentality 
the result was brought about? How does God 
quicken those dead in trespasses and sins, and 
work in his people to will and to do, without 
interfering with their liberty? Answer these 
questions, and I will at once show how Divine 
Decrees and Free Agency are reconcileable. 
The difficulty is not concerning the divine pur- 
poses , but concerning a particular providence and 
divine influence on the hearts of men. But Ar- 
minians, at least many of them, hold both these 
doctrines. The difficulty, therefore, arises not 
about points on which they differ from us, but 
concerning Divine providence and Divine influ¬ 
ence, in reference to the existence of which they 
agree with us. 

Let it, then, be distinctly understood, that 
our Arminian friends must either withdraw the 
objection, that the doctrine of Divine Decrees is 
destructive of free agency, or they must deny 
the doctrines of a particular providence and di- 


FOREORDINATf0N PROVED. H# 

Vine influence. For it is by a controlling provi¬ 
dence and divine influence that all the purposes 
of God concerning the conduct of men, are ful¬ 
filled; and if the free agency of men is destroy¬ 
ed, it is by these influences. We must, then, 
charge the Armiuian system with being wholly 
inconsistent with the fundamental doctrines of 
Divine providence and Divine influence. God 
in his providence fulfills his purposes; and if his 
purposes destroy free agency, he cannot exercise 
a providence over men; much less can he 
“work in them to will and to do of his good 
pleasure.” 

Now think what would be the condition of 
bur world, if there were no providence and no 
divine influence upon the hearts of men. Deny 
these doctrines, and what is left that is better 
than blank Atheism? But our Arminian friends 
Will not reject them; they earnestly contend for 
them. If, then, they will not be chargeable with 
gross inconsistency, they must withdraw the ob¬ 
jection, that Divine Decrees are destructive of 
Free Agency. The doctrines which they hold, 
labor under the precise difficulty they charge 
upon ours. 

The plain truth on this whole subject is, that 
we know absolutely nothing concerning the man- 



114 GOD sovereign and man free. 

ner in which God operates on the human heart; 
and therefore we can know nothing at all con- 
cerning the consistency of the divine operations 
with human freedom, save what we learn from 
the Scriptures and from our own consciousness. 
From neither of these sources do we learn, that 
God cannot so control men as to fulfill his pur¬ 
poses without destroying their free agency. A 
man may say, that he cannot see how the two 
things are consistent; and this may be true; for 
he cannot see how God operates on the mind. 
But his ignorance does not authorize him to af¬ 
firm, that they are not consistent. 

II. It is objected, that this doctrine makes God 
the author of sin. This objection has already 
been substantially answered. It is based upon 
the objection just refuted, that the doctrine of 
Divine Decrees is destructive of man’s free agen¬ 
cy. But if, as we have proved, the doctrine 
leaves man’s free agency untouched, it is clear 
that his accountability is perfect, and he is the 
exclusive author of his own sins. Let the ex¬ 
planation of the doctrine already given, be kept 
in view. God, for wise reasons, was pleased to 
permit our first parents to be tempted and to 
fall. This permission, it is most evident, did 
not make him the author of their sin. He chose 


FOREORDINATION PROVED. 


115 


to overrule this sin to his own holy ends. This 
overruling of the sin which he permitted, cer¬ 
tainly did not make him the author of the sin. 
God permitted Joseph’s brethren to hate him 
and to sell him. This permission did not make 
him the author of that hatred, or of their act in 
selling him. God purposed to overrule their 
wickedness for good. The fact that he brought 
good out of their intended evil, did not make 
him the author of their evil. God decreed that 
Cyrus should take Babylon; but since he only 
permitted and controlled the unhallowed ambi¬ 
tion of Cyrus, he did not thereby become the 
author of the sins committed by Cyrus. He 
decreed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and he 
permitted and overruled for good the wrath of 
the Jews against him. But he was not the au¬ 
thor of the sin committed by them in crucifying 
Christ. The objection is founded upon an en¬ 
tirely false view of the doctrine, viz: that the 
Divine Decree is the necessitating cause of sin , 
or of the sinful acts of men. It is perfectly re¬ 
futed, therefore, by simply giving a correct state¬ 
ment of the doctrine. 


- 





PART II 




DOCTRINE OF ELECTION, 




DOCTRINE OP ELECTION. 


CHAPTER 1. 

THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION STATED. 

The doctrine of Election forms a distinct 
branch of the general doctrine of Divine Decrees. 
That we may determine whether it is Scriptural^ 
it is particularly important that it be correctly 
stated. The most plausible objections urged 
against it, it is believed, derive all their appa¬ 
rent strength from the misapprehension or mis¬ 
representation of it. 

1. The doctrine of Election contemplates the 
whole human family as fallen in Adam, as by na¬ 
ture totally depraved, and justly exposed to eter¬ 
nal punishment. Now, if such is not the condition 
of men,—if they are not fallen, wholly depraved, 
and exposed to the just penalty of God’s law, 
the doctrine is of course false. Consequently it 
has been denied and denounced by all who reject 
the doctrine of Original Sin, and deny that men 
“are by nature children of wrath.” 


120 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

2. The doctrine teaches, that God, for the glory 
of his name, purposed from eternity to renew, 
justify, sanctify and save, through Jesus Christ, 
a multitude of the human race, and to pass by 
others, leaving them the willing slaves of sinj 
and to punish them for their sin. The atone¬ 
ment made by Jesus Christ is indeed of infinite 
value, because made by a Being of infinite dig¬ 
nity, and is therefore sufficient for the salvation 
of all men; so that if God had purposed to save 
all, no change in the atonement, or addition to 
it, would have been necessary. Salvation is 
freely offered through Jesus Christ to all who 
hear the gospel; and all, being free moral agents, 
are free to accept or reject it. Depravity, 
though it renders men averse to the service of 
God and the gospel of Christ, does not interfere 
with their freedom of choice and their just ac¬ 
countability. All men, though free to accept or 
reject the offered salvation, will certainly reject 
it, if left to themselves; that is, if their hearts 
be not changed by the Holy Spirit. God, for 
his own glory, purposed to dispose a multitude 
to accept it by trusting in Christ. God had the 
best reasons for choosing the individuals whom 
he did choose, and for passing by others; but 
those reasons he has not made known. He has 


DOCTRINE STATED. 


121 


taught only, that the elect were not chosen be¬ 
cause they were better than others. We, there¬ 
fore, can only say:—“Even so, Father, for so it 
seemed good in thy sight.” If it be asked, 
Why did not God determine to treat all alike, 
to bestow upon all equal privileges and bless¬ 
ings? we answer, we do not know. We know 
only* that, for wise reasons not revealed to men, 
he has given to some blessings to which they 
had no claim,—thus making them great debtors 
to his grace; and has withheld from others, gifts 
he was under no obligation to bestow. 

Such is the doctrine of Election, with the ex^ 
planations and qualifications given by Calvinists. 
Such is the doctrine as held by the Presbyterian 
Church. Is it true? Is it scriptural? 

This is a subject in the examination of which 
we cannot safely rely either upon our feelings or 
upon unassisted reason. So far as we are able 
to reason on the subject of man’s condition, it 
would appear to us more in accordance with the 
Divine perfections to have preserved our world 
free from sin and suffering. Some, indeed, have 
asserted that God could not do this, if he created 
free moral agents; but God has nowhere author¬ 
ized such an assertion. And besides, it would 
seem to us far less difficult to preserve holy be- 


122 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


ings in a state of purity, than to restore them 
to holiness when they have become the willing 
slaves of sin, and have long indulged in the com¬ 
mission of it. If God could do the latter with¬ 
out interfering with the liberty of men, as it is 
admitted he does in a multitude of instances, 
who can deny that he might have done the for¬ 
mer? Besides, if the free moral agency of holy 
beings necessarily exposes them to fall into sin, 
there can be no certainty that those redeemed 
by the blood of Christ will not sin even in heav¬ 
en, and then be hurled, as were the fallen angels, 
down to hell. Now, although some professing 
Christians have held, that persons really regen¬ 
erated might fall from grace in the present life; 
none, so far as we know, have held that such a 
thing might occur in heaven. The permission 
of sin must be regarded as a profound mystery, 
which, in this life, we may not comprehend. 
Nor is this the only mystery connected with the 
present condition of our race. One is born blind, 
another is blessed with sight. One is born with 
a vigorous constitution, and enjoys almost unin¬ 
terrupted health; another inherits a painful and 
incurable disease, and sinks early into the grave. 
One is born to wealth; another to poverty and 
want. One is born of infidel, or dissipated pa- 


DOCTRINE STATED. 


123 


rents; another of parents who instill into the 
infant mind virtuous principles both by precept 
and example. One is born in the midst of pa¬ 
gan or papal darkness; another under the clear 
light of the gospel. These are differences deeply 
affecting the happiness of those concerned, yet 
depending not at all upon their character or con¬ 
duct, Why are such differences permitted to 
exist? Doubtless God has wise reasons for his 
providential dealings; but to men they are pro¬ 
foundly mysterious. Indeed, the whole history 
of the world is a practical commentary upon the 
language of God by Isaiah:—“For my thoughts 
are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens 
are higher than the earth, so are my ways high¬ 
er than your ways, and my thoughts than your 
thoughts.”* And often, as we contemplate the 
high mysteries of God’s dealings with men, we 
are constrained to adopt the language of Paul, 
whilst considering the rejection and dispersion 
of the Jews:—“0 the depth of the riches both 
of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how un¬ 
searchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
finding out.”f Our true position, in the inves- 


* Isai. 55: 8, 9. 


fRom 11: 35. 



124 GOD sovereign and man free. 

tigation of a subject like the one before us, is 
that of disciples , sitting at the feet of Jesus to 
learn of him; and our appropriate business is 
that of interpreting the word of God , not abstract 
reasoning, such as proud philosophers are wont 
to adopt. If any are disposed to reject the doc¬ 
trine of Election without a prayerful and candid 
examination of its claims, let them not forget 
that it has commanded the firm belief of multi¬ 
tudes of the wisest and best men that have lived. 
There must, therefore, be strong reasons in favor 
of its truth. 



CHAPTER II, 


OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION STATED, AND THE 
ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES OF ARMINIANISM EXPOSED. 

A number of general objections are urged 
against the doctrine of Election, which it will be 
satisfactory to consider before we proceed to the 
direct proof of its truth. 

One of the most plausible objections is, that 
the doctrine is inconsistent with the justice of God . 
Now that God is infinitely just, we admit and 
assert; and if the doctrine of Election is indeed 
inconsistent with Divine justice, it must be re¬ 
jected as false and injurious. Justice consists 
in a strict regard for all the rights or just claims 
of others. Injustice , in the Divine administra¬ 
tion would necessarily consist, therefore, either 
in withholding from his creatures those blessings * 
to which they have a just claim; or in inflicting 
upon them sufferings which they do not deserve. 
Does the doctrine of Election represent God as 
doing either of these things? If it does, the 
f objection urged against it is valid; if it does not, 
the objection has no force. In what, then, con¬ 
sists the alleged injustice implied in the doctrine 


126 GOD sovereign and man free. 

under consideration? It of course does not con¬ 
sist in the saving of the elect. Their salvation 
is indeed wholly of grace; but in the plan of sal¬ 
vation, the exercise of grace, it is admitted, is 
perfectly consistent with Divine justice,—its 
claims having been fully satisfied by Jesus Christ 
for his people. The injustice implied in the 
doctrine must, therefore, if it exist at all, be 
exercised toward the non-elect Let us, then, 
carefully examine wherein, if this doctrine be 
true, they are treated unjustly. Are blessings 
withheld from them to which they have just 
claim? Or are sufferings inflicted which they 
do not merit? That we may satisfactorily an¬ 
swer these questions, let us get a distinct view 
of the real condition of the human race. 

On the following points, the more evangelical 
Class of Arminians agree with us: 1. That God 
created man in his moral image, in true holiness. 
2. That our first parents yielded to the tempta¬ 
tion of the devil, and fell from their original 
holiness. 3. That in his trial Adam was the 
federal head of his posterity, and that his first 
sin was imputed to them; and, consequently, 
they are regarded and treated as if they had 
done what he did. Of the consequences of the 
imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, Rev. 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


127 


Richard Watson says:—"The first consequence, 
then, of this imputation is the death of the body, 
to which all the descendants of Adam are made 
liable, and that on account of the sin of Adam.” 
The second consequence, he says, is "death spir¬ 
itual^ that moral state which arises from the 
withdrawment of that intercourse of God with 
the human soul, in consequence of its becoming 
polluted, and of that influence upon it which is 
the only source and spring of the right and vig-* 
orous direction and employment of its powers in 
which its rectitude consists; a deprivation from 
which a depravation consequently and necessarily 
follows.” The third consequence, according to 
the same author, "is eternal deaths separation from 
God, and endless banishment from his glory in a 
future state.”* Now, admitting the views of 
Mr. Watson concerning the imputation of Ad¬ 
am’s sin, and the consequences flowing therefrom, 
to be correct, what is the real condition of the 
human family, aside from the plan of salvation? 
All are mortal, exposed to temporal death; all 
are spiritually dead, totally depraved; and all 
are "children of wrath,” exposed to eternal mis¬ 
ery. The doctrine of Election teaches, that God, 


Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 18. 



128 GOD sovereign and man free. 


of his infinite mercy, purposed, from eternity, to 
renew, sanctify, justify and save, through Jesus 
Christ, a portion of the fallen race of Adam; and 
this doctrine, we are assured, is inconsistent with 
the justice of God. That is, if God should thus 
choose a portion of the human race, and pass by 
the remainder, leaving them in their fallen and 
condemned condition, he would thus do injustice 
to these last. Of course, as before remarked, he 
would, if the objection be well founded, either 
withhold from them what they have a just claim 
to, or inflict upon them sufferings they do not 
deserve. 

Now, let us suppose, that God had passed by 
the whole human race, leaving them in their 
fallen, depraved and condemned condition, as he 
passed by the fallen angels, would he have been 
chargeable with injustice toward them? If not, 
he would simply have left them to a just doom, 
and to a just punishment. But if he might 
justly pass by all , how is he chargeable with in¬ 
justice toward those whom he does thus pass by? 
Does the injustice consist in saving some? Will 
it be pretended, that his bestowing on some a 
gracious salvation, deprives others of what they 
had a just claim to? Those who are saved, re¬ 
ceive blessings to which they have no claim,—are 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


129 


saved by grace , not by merit. Does the bestow¬ 
ing upon some men blessings to which they had 
no claim, give others a just claim to those bless¬ 
ings? If so, it would follow that but one sinner 
could be saved by grace; for so soon as saving 
grace was bestowed on one, all others would 
have a just claim to the same blessings, and 
would consequently receive them as debt, not as 
grace. But the idea is too absurd. If it be ad¬ 
mitted that God might justly have passed by all 
men and left them to perish, it follows inevita¬ 
bly that in saving some he does no injustice to 
others whom he does not save. In other words, 
if God might justly leave all to perish, he is not 
in justice bound to save any; and if he is not 
bound to save any, he does no injustice to those 
whom he does not save. 

If we can understand Mr. Watson, he contends 
that the imputation of Adam’s sin to his poster¬ 
ity, and their consequent exposedness to eternal 
misery, are just. He says:—“The justice of 
this [i. e., their exposedness to eternal misery] 
is objected to, a point which will be immediately 
considered; but it is now sufficient to say, that 
if the making the descendants of Adam liable to 
eternal death, because of his offence, be unjust, 
the infliction of temporal death is so also,—the 


130 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE* 

duration of the punishment making* no differ¬ 
ence in the simple question of justice. If pun¬ 
ishment, whether of loss or of pain, be unjust, 
its measure and duration may be a greater or a 
less injustice; but it is unjust in every degree. 
If, then, we only confine the hurt we have re¬ 
ceived from Adam to bodily death,—if this legal 
result of his transgression only be imputed to 
us, and we are so constituted sinners as to be¬ 
come liable to it, we are in precisely the same 
difficulty as to the equity of the proceedings, as 
when the legal result is extended further. The 
only way out of this dilemma is that adopted 
by Dr. Taylor, to consider death not as a pun¬ 
ishment, but as a blessing, which involves the 
absurdity of making Deity threaten a benefit as 
a penalty for an offence, which sufficiently re¬ 
futes the notion.”* This language is sufficiently 
plain. Mr. Watson proves conclusively, that the 
imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, to¬ 
gether with all the consequences even to eternal 
misery, is strictly just. Most assuredly, then, 
it cannot be unjust in God to inflict upon any 
of his creatures just punishment To assert that 
it is, would be a palpable contradiction. 


* Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 18. 



OBJECTIONS STATED. 


131 


But it may be said, that it would have been 
unjust in God to have passed by all the human 
race, and left them to perish in their sin; that 
since Adam’s posterity had no agency in his sin 
by which they were brought into a ruined con¬ 
dition, God was bound to provide for them a way 
of escape. On this point the language of Mr. 
Watson appears contradictory. Speaking of nat¬ 
ural death as coming upon Adam’s posterity be¬ 
cause of his sin, he says, “here was justice, the 
end of which is to support law, as that supports 
government.” Of their spiritual death, flowing 
from the same cause, he says, “here was justice, 
a display of the evil of sin, and of the penalty it 
ever immediately induces.” In regard to the 
resurrection by Jesus Christ, regeneration by 
the Holy Spirit, and the offer of eternal life, he 
says, “here is mercy.” Now if such language 
means anything, it means that the justice of 
God would consign the whole human race to 
death,—temporal, spiritual and eternal; and that 
it is mercy which affords them the offer of salva- 
* tion. And yet he says immediately afterwards: 
“In all this, it is impossible to impeach the 
equity of the Divine procedure, since no man 
suffers any loss or injury ultimately by the sin 
of Adam, but by his own willful obstinacy,—the 




132 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


‘abounding grace’ by Christ Jesus, haying placed 
before all men, upon their believing, not merely 
compensation for the loss and injury sustained 
by Adam, but infinitely higher blessings, both 
in kind and degree, than were forfeited in him.” 
He here defends the justice of God in the impu¬ 
tation of Adam’s sin, on the ground that by the 
plan of salvation through Jesus Christ he offers 
the human race the opportunity of escaping from 
the consequences of that imputation,—evidently 
implying, that but for the offer of salvation, 
which he yet ascribes to mercy , that imputation 
would be unjust. This ground is much more 
strongly taken, when he urges against the doc¬ 
trine of Election the objection that it is unjust. 
He says:—“In whatever light the subject be 
viewed, no fault, in any right construction, can 
be chargeable upon the persons so punished, or 
as we may rather say, destroyed; since punish¬ 
ment supposes a judicial proceeding, which this 
act shuts out. For either the reprobates are 
destroyed for a pure reason of sovereignty, with¬ 
out any reference to their sinfulness, and thus 
all criminality is left out of the consideration; 
or they are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to 
which they were not consenting; or for personal 
faults resulting from a corruption of nature 




OBJECTIONS STATED. 


133 


which they brought into the world with them, 
and which God wills not to correct, and they 
have no power to correct themselves. Every 
received notion of justice is thus violated.” 
The position is here distinctly taken, that it 
would be unjust in God to pass by all or any of 
the human family, leaving them to perish in 
their sin, without both offering them a Saviour, 
and giving them such assistance that they can 
correct that corruption of nature with which they 
came into the world. Consequences of most 
serious import follow this position. 

1. In the first place, it clearly charges God 
with injustice. Observe, Mr. Watson not only 
admits, but asserts that God did impute the sin 
of Adam to his posterity, and that the legitimate 
consequences of that imputation were natural 
death, spiritual death, and exposedness to eter¬ 
nal death; and yet he contends most earnestly, 
that it would be unjust that they should be left 
to suffer these consequences. Most certainly, 
then, the imputation itself, which exposes them 
to undeserved sufferings, is unjust. Nor is the 
difficulty at all removed by the fact, that God 
offers them the opportunity of salvation through 
Jesus Christ. An unjust act cannot be made 
just by another act intended to compensate for 


134 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

the injustice done. If I, without provocation, 
push a man into a pit, and he be badly bruised, 
it is no justification of the act that I let down a 
ladder for him, and call in a physician to cure 
his wounds. If the imputation of the sin of 
Adam to his posterity, with all the consequences 
legitimately flowing from it, be not in itself just, 
the provisions of the gospel, of which many never 
hear, cannot make it so. These provisions can 
be considered in no other light, than as being 
some amends made for an injury previously 
done. 

In a word, the human race are in their present 
lost condition, either by the operation of just 
principles or of unjust principles. If the former 
be admitted, then evidently there can be no in¬ 
justice in their being left where justice placed 
them. If the latter be alleged, then God is 
charged with injustice. So far, then, from our 
doctrine being chargeable with making God 
unjust, the objection lies strongly against Ar- 
minianism! 

2. The objection we are considering destroys 
all grace in the gospel system, and makes the 
salvation of men a mere matter of debt . As a 
matter of fact, the human race, it is admitted, 
are fallen, mortal, depraved, and exposed to eter- 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


135 


rial misery. If left in this condition, they must 
perish. But Mr. Watson and his Arminian 
brethren say, it would be most unjust that they 
should be left to perish. Justice , then, requires 
that an adequate provision be made for their 
escape. The gospel is such a provision. Is it 
not, then, clear that the mission of the Son of 
God into our world, his crucifixion, and the whole 
plan of salvation, is a mere matter of justice to¬ 
ward men,—a provision which God, who imputed 
to them Adam’s sin, and thus brought them into 
their lost condition, was bound in justice to 
make? Observe, if Christ had not oome into 
the world and died, all men must have perished. 
But says Mr. Watson, they would be destroyed 
“for a pure reason of sovereignty, without any 
reference to their sinfulness, and thus all crimi¬ 
nality is left out of the consideration; or they 
are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to which they 
were not consenting; or for personal faults re¬ 
sulting from a corruption of nature which they 
brought into the world with them, and which 
God wills not to correct, and they have no power 
to correct themselves. Every received notion 
of justice is thus violated.” Evidently, accord¬ 
ing to this reasoning, God was bound to send 
his Son to die for man, to offer them salvation, 


136 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

and give them sufficient aid to enable them to 
accept. And if, when the offer is made, any ac¬ 
cept it, God is bound in justice to save them; 
for surely it would be unjust that any one perish 
who accepts the offer of life which God was bound 
to make. And, then, it is not only true that all 
dying in infancy are saved, (which we believe,) 
but both they and believing adults are saved, not 
b}^ grace, but by justice. It would have been 
unjust that either class should perish. 

Indeed, if the principles advanced by Mr. Wat¬ 
son are true, we see no necessity for an atone¬ 
ment. If justice requires that men should have 
the offer of salvation, why should Christ suffer 
to make it consistent for God to do a just thing? 
Then indeed the law , which is just, would offer 
salvation without an atonement. Where, then, 
is the grace in the plan of salvation? There 
can be none. 

How different this view from that presented 
in the Scriptures:—“God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso¬ 
ever believeth in him, might not perish, but have 
everlasting life.” Men were in a perishing con¬ 
dition, and the offer of salvation through Christ 
is here declared to be the result of boundless love , 
not of Divine justice toward men. Accordingly 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


137 


Paul says:—“Ye know the grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for 
your sakes he became poor, that ye through his 
poverty might be rich.”* The whole provision 
and the entire salvation of man is declared to be 
the manifestation of the boundless grace of God, 
not in any degree the result of Divine justice 
to injured man. “For by grace are ye saved 
through faith: and that not of yourselves; it is 
the gift of God.” “The wages of sin is death; 
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus 
Christ our Lord.” 

We are constrained to charge upon Arminian- 
ism, that it destroys all grace in the plan of re¬ 
demption. Is there grace in the salvation of 
infants? No; for it is alleged that it would be 
most unjust that they should perish because of 
their connection with Adam, and of their conse¬ 
quent depravity. Justice , therefore, saves them. 
Is there grace in the salvation of adults? No; 
for they derive their natural death and their 
depravity, from which flow all their sins, from 
Adam; and God is bound to offer them deliver¬ 
ance, and, of course, to save them, if they accept 
the offer. 


* 2 Cor. 8: 9. 



138 GOD sovereign and man free. 

3. There is another most serious error in the 
doctrine of Mr. Watson, He evidently consid¬ 
ers depravity of heart as so far destroying or 
impairing the free agency and accountability of 
man, that unless divine influence be exerted 
upon them to remove its effects, they cannot be 
justly required to repent and turn from their 
sins, and to trust in Jesus Christ. He says:— 
“If all men everywhere would condemn it, as 
most contrary to justice and right, that a sove¬ 
reign should condemn to death one or more of 
his subjects for not obeying laws which it is ab¬ 
solutely impossible for them under any circum¬ 
stances which they can possibly avail themselves 
of to obey, and much more the greater part of 
his subjects, and to require them, on pain of ag¬ 
gravated punishment, to do something in order 
to the pardon and remission of their offences, 
which he knows they cannot do, say to stop the 
tide or to remove a mountain, it implies a charge 
as awfully and obviously unjust against God, to 
suppose him to act precisely in the same manner 
as to those whom he has passed by and rejected, 
without any avoidable fault of their own.” In 
the same connection he speaks of “personal 
faults resulting from a conniption of nature which 
they brought into the world with them, and 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


139 


which God wills not to correct, and they have 
no power to correct themselves,” and represents 
the non-elect as “left under a necessity of sin¬ 
ning in every condition.” Now if this represen¬ 
tation be correct, the effect of depravity upon the 
minds of men is so completely to paralyze then- 
powers, that they are under a necessity of sinning, 
and can no more love and obey God than they 
can stop the tide or remove a mountain. Look 
at the consequences which necessarily flow from 
such a principle. 

1. Men left without divine influence to relieve 
them from the effects of depravity are not ac¬ 
countable beings, and are under no obligation to 
obey the law of God. If they can no more obey 
the law of God than they can stop the tide, and 
are under a necessity of sinning, they can be 
under no obligation to obey. And if they are 
under no obligation to obey, they are not charge¬ 
able with sin in disobeying; and if not chargea¬ 
ble with sin in disobeying, they do not and can¬ 
not sin. The conclusion, therefore, to which we 
are forced, according to Mr. Watson’s doctrine, 
is that men, left in their natural state, are so 
depraved that they cannot sin! for certain it is, 
that they who cannot obey, cannot disobey. 

2. According to this doctrine, the very first 


140 GOD sovereign and man free. 


effect of Divine grace on the hearts of men, is 
to enable them to sin! Left entirely to them¬ 
selves, as we have seen, they could not sin; but 
it is admitted that all do sin when they reach 
the period of moral agency, which they could 
not do if left without divine influence. Does it 
not follow, that all the actual transgressions of 
men, so far as they possess any criminality, are 
traceable to that divine influence which, accord¬ 
ing to our Arminian brethren, is given to every 
man? And does not this look like making God 
the author of sin? 

3. According to the doctrine we are consider¬ 
ing, the more depraved men become the less sin 
they commit! Total depravity, we are assured, 
makes it necessary for men to sin. Now r let the 
sinner reject that divine aid which is proffered 
him, extinguish by his persevering wickedness 
that spark of grace which it is said God has put 
into his heart, and ever after he is under a ne¬ 
cessity of doing as he does,—can no more obey 
God than he can stop the tide. He may be 
criminal, to some extent, in extinguishing that 
spark, just as a man would be in deliberately 
putting out his eyes; but as the latter would be 
under no obligation to see after his eyes were 
put out, so the former would be under no obliga- 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


141 


tion to obey God after he had extinguished the 
spark of grace in his heart. Forever afterwards 
he would be incapable of either obeying or diso¬ 
beying God. He could sin no more! 

4. If the effect of depravity be to destroy free 
agency and accountability, then the more de¬ 
praved a man becomes, even though he have not 
entirely expelled from his heart all divine influ¬ 
ence, the less capable he is of sinning. So that 
the most depraved men in the world really com¬ 
mit less sin than those who are far better! 

5. According to this doctrine, the devils and 
all lost spirits are wholly incapable of sinning; 
for most assuredly they are totally depraved, 
and have in their hearts not a spark of Divine 
grace. They devise wicked plans, and execute 
them; and they blaspheme the name of God; 
but since they are under a necessity of doing 
these things, and can be under no obligation to 
do otherwise, they are chargeable with nothing 
criminal. They are so deeply depraved, that 
they cannot sin! To such absurdities does the 
doctrine lead, upon which is founded the charge 
of injustice against the doctrine of Election. 

The plain truth is, that there is no tendency 
in depravity to destroy or impair man’s free 
agency and just accountability. Satan has free 


142 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

agency as perfect now, as before he fell from 
heaven. The only difference is that he loved to 
do right then, and he loves to do wrong now. 
But in choosing to gratify his evil affections by 
doing wrong now, he is as free as he was in 
choosing to gratify his pure affections by doing 
right then; and, therefore, he is under the same 
obligation to obey God now as then. The evi¬ 
dence of our free agency is our own conscious¬ 
ness, and the worst man is as distinctly conscious 
of acting freely, and of being justly accountable, 
as the best. It is not true, therefore, that the 
sinner, left to himself, is under the necessity of 
sinning; nor is it true, that to require him to 
obey God, or to believe in Christ, would be as 
unreasonable and as unjust as to require him to 
stop the tide or to remove a mountain. The 
charge of injustice against the doctrine of Elec¬ 
tion, is made out by connecting Arminian phi¬ 
losophy with Calvinistic theology. We protest 
against the unnatural union, and against all in¬ 
ferences drawn from it. We hold, that the hu¬ 
man mind is from its very nature free, and must 
always continue free; and consequently the ob¬ 
ligation of all men capable of understanding the 
requirements of the Divine law to obey it, is 
perfect, whether they are totally depraved or 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


143 


not. That there is a sense in which the sinner 
cannot serve God, is true; but his inability is 
not of a kind which interferes with his free agen¬ 
cy and accountability. Like Joseph’s brethren, 
who “hated him and could not speak peaceably 
to him,” the sinner is the more criminal for his 
inability. 

To sum up the whole matter, the human race 
are in their lost and ruined condition by the op¬ 
eration’of just principles, or they are not. If 
they are, God might justly leave them in that 
condition; and if, for reasons satisfactory to In¬ 
finite Wisdom, he should pass by some of them, 
there would be no injustice done them. He 
would withhold nothing from them to which they 
have any just claim, and he would inflict on them 
no punishment they do not deserve. For it is 
absurd to say, that men are justly exposed to 
eternal misery; and yet it would be unjust that 
they should suffer it. It is the same as saying, 
it is unjust to inflict a just penalty. 

But if it be alleged, that men are fallen and 
exposed to ruin by the operation of principles 
that are not just, then, in the first place, it fol¬ 
lows that the principles of God’s moral govern¬ 
ment, under which he placed Adam and his 
posterity, are unjust; and, in the second place, 


144 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


that there is no grace in his remedial system,— 
it being nothing more than God’s plan of offer¬ 
ing to men what in justice he could not with¬ 
hold. 

We feel constrained here distinctly to charge, 
not upon Arminians themselves, hut upon their 
system, that it impugns the principles of God’s 
moral government, by admitting the fact of the 
imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, and 
yet declaring the legitimate consequences 4 of that 
imputation unjust. We charge that system with 
making the whole plan of salvation a matter not 
of grace but of debt , by holding God under obli¬ 
gation to provide men the means of escape from 
their fallen condition. 

Whatever difficulties men may find in seeing 
the consistency of the imputation of Adam’s 
sin to his posterity with the principles of jus¬ 
tice, so long as we admit the fact, (and the 
Scriptures do plainly teach it,) we must believe 
it perfectly consistent. It is certain that God 
never adopted an unjust principle,—a principle 
which, legitimately acted upon, would do injus¬ 
tice to any of his creatures. If, therefore, he 
did adopt the principle of federal representation, 
as Arminians admit, that principle is just, wheth¬ 
er with our present limited knowledge we can see 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


145 


it to be so or not. There is, however, really no 
more difficulty in reconciling with justice the im¬ 
putation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, than in 
reconciling the sufferings of infants and univer¬ 
sal depravity, or the fact that children do, in 
multitudes of instances, suffer terribly in conse¬ 
quence of the wickedness of their parents. In¬ 
deed it would not be difficult to prove that the 
doctrines of the Scriptures on this point, is at¬ 
tended with fewer difficulties than any theory by 
which men have attempted to explain the ex¬ 
isting state of things. 

If, then, the doctrine of imputation is just, 
and if men are free agents irrespective of any 
divine influence upon their hearts, the doctrine 

I of Election is not inconsistent with the justice 
of God. The non-elect are deprived of nothing 
to which they have just claim, and are subjected 
to no unmerited punishment. They loved sin, 
and God left them to pursue the course they 
chose. Indeed multitudes of them are chargea¬ 
ble with freely and deliberately rejecting the offers 
of salvation. The opposers of this doctrine, then, 
must assail it on some other ground. 

A second objection to the doctrine of Election 
is, that it represents God as a respecter of per¬ 
sons. Now, we cheerfully admit that the objec- 

13 




146 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

tion, if well founded, is fatal to the doctrine; for 
it is certain, as the Scriptures repeatedly declare, 
that God is not a respecter of persons. Before 
we can determine what force there is in the ob¬ 
jection, we must ascertain the precise meaning 
of the phrase respecter of persons. This we can 
do by comparing the passages of Scripture in 
which it occurs. Moses charged the Jewish 
judges:—“Ye shall not respect persons in judg¬ 
ment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the 
great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man,” 
etc. Again:—“Thou shalt not wrest judgment; 
thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a 
gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, 
and pervert the words of the righteous.” In 
these passages, it is evident that the phrase has 
reference exclusively to the conduct of a judge 
trying a cause brought legally before him. If 
in his decisions he were influenced not by the 
law and the testimony, but by personal prejudice 
in favor of one of the parties, or by the fear of 
man, or by a bribe, he would be a respecter of 
persons. In the same sense it is applied to God: 
“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and 
Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a ter¬ 
rible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh 
reward: he doth execute the judgment of the 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


147 


fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in 
giving him food and raiment.” Paul explains 
the phrase, when he says, God “will render to 
every man according to his deeds, etc.; for there 
is no respect of persons with God.” When Pe¬ 
ter saw that God had accepted Cornelius, a pious 
Gentile, he said:—“Of a truth I perceive that 
God is no respecter of persons: but in every 
nation he that feareth him and worketh right¬ 
eousness, is accepted with him.”* If God had 
rejected Cornelius, who was a truly pious man, 
simply because he was a Gentile, whilst he would 
receive a Jew of the same character, he would 
have been a respecter of persons. But inasmuch 
as he accepts all righteous men, of whatever na¬ 
tion, he is not so. A respecter of persons, then, 
is one who, acting as a judge, decides not accord¬ 
ing to law and testimony, but is governed by 
sinister motives; who does not treat those who 
come before him according to their character; 
who withholds from some that to which they 
have just claim, in order to give to others what 
is not their due; or who is governed in his treat¬ 
ment of men by prejudice, not by a proper esti¬ 
mate of their real character. Precisely this 


* Acts 10: 34,35. 



148 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


interpretation of the phrase respecter of persons, 
is given by Dr. Adam Clarke.* 

Now the doctrine of Election teaches that all 
the human race are fallen, depraved, and exposed 
to the wrath of God, none of them having any 
claims upon God; and that upon some of them 
he, for his own glory, bestows gifts and blessings 


* In his Commentary on Acts x. 34, he thus explains it: 
“He does not esteem a Jew, because he is a Jew ; nor does 
he detest a Gentile, because he is a Gentile. It was a long 
and deeply rooted opinion among the Jews, that God never 
would extend his favor to the Gentiles; and that the de¬ 
scendants of Jacob only should enjoy his peculiar favor and 
benediction. Of this opinion was St. Peter, previously to 
the heavenly vision mentioned in this chapter. He was 
now convinced that God was no respecter of persons; that 
all must stand before his judgment-seat, to be judged ac¬ 
cording to the deeds done in the body; so no one nation of 
people, or individual, could expect to find a more favorable 
decision than another, who w*as precisely in the same moral 
state: for the phrase respect of persons, is used in reference 
to unjust decisions in a court of justice, when through favor, 
or interest, or bribe, a culprit is acquitted, and a righteous 
or innocent person condemned. And as there is no iniquity 
(decisions contrary to equity) with God, so he could not 
shut out the pious prayers, sincere fasting, and benevolent 
alms■ giving Cornelius; because the very spring whence 
they proceeded was his own grace and mercy. Therefore he 
could not receive even a Jew into his favor, (in preference 
to such a person) who had either abused his grace or made a 
less godly use of it than this Gentile had done.” 



OBJECTIONS STATED. 


149 


which he does not bestow upon others. Is this 
doctrine liable to the objection, that it makes 
God a respecter of persons? The objection is 
based upon the principle, that God is bound to 
give to every individual of the human family 
precisely the same or equal gifts; and, conse¬ 
quently, if in any one instance he fails to do 
this, he is a respecter of persons. Or if it be 
admitted that he may bestow upon some, gifts 
which he grants not to others no more unde¬ 
serving, those who press this objection must tell 
us precisely hoiv far he may proceed in making 
a difference before he becomes chargeable with 
respecting persons. One individual, for exam¬ 
ple, is born blind, and another is blessed with 
vision. God in his providence bestows upon the 
latter an inestimable blessing, which he withholds 
from the former; and this difference, existing 
before either could do good or evil, is not founded 
on difference of character. Is God, then, a res¬ 
pecter of persons ? The Arminian will agree with 
us that he is not. But why not? Mr. Watson 
urges against Election the objection under con¬ 
sideration on the ground that it makes the accept¬ 
ance or rejection of men stand on some ground of 
aversion or dislike, which cannot be resolved into 
any moral rule and has no respect to the merits 


150 GOD sovereign and man free. 

of the case itself* No; it represents God as 
bestowing upon some persons gifts which he 
bestows not on others who possess the same 
depravity of heart. And in the case we are 
considering, God certainly does withhold from 
one of his creatures a blessing of incalculable 
value, which he bestows upon another; and, as 
before remarked, this difference is made before 
either of them has done good or evil. Into what 
moral rule can we resolve this difference? What 
respect has it to the merits of the case itself ? 
Yet all are compelled to admit that God does 
make just such differences, and even greater, in 
his treatment of his creatures in ten thousand 
instances; and still he is not a respecter of per¬ 
sons. Why such differences are made, it is im¬ 
possible for us to know; but certain it is, that 
God has the best reasons for making them. 

But it may be said, that however it may be 
consistent in God to make a difference in the 
treatment of his creatures, as regards mere tern - 
poral blessings , such as vision, health, wealth, 
liberty, and the like, he cannot, without being a 
respecter of persons, make a similar difference 
in the bestowment of spiritual blessings con- 


*Theol. Inst., pt. 2 , ch. 26. 



OBJECTIONS STATED. 


151 


nected with the salvation of the soul. We 
answer: 1. That it does not appear how the 
'principle is changed, when the difference relates 
to spiritual gifts. If God may withhold from an 
individual the blessing of vision , why not any 
other blessing? The withholding of a greater 
blessing might be a greater injustice, if there 
were injustice in the case, or a more glaring 
manifestation of respect of persons; but the 
principle is the same. 2. But Mr. Watson, even 
when urging the objection against election, that 
it makes God a respecter of persons, concedes 
the principle which overthrows the objection. 
ITe says:—“This phrase, we grant, is not to be 
interpreted as though the bounties of the Al¬ 
mighty were dispensed in equal measures to his 
creatures. In the administration of favor, there 
is place for the exercise of that prerogative which, 
in a just sense, is called the sovereignty of God; 
but justice knows but one rule,”* etc. And are 
not all the blessings of salvation through Christ 
mer q favors to men? Do not even Arminians 
hold that they are all of graced If so, there is 
confessedly room for the exercise of sovereignty. 
If men have just claim to any of these blessings, 


*Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 26. 



152 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

they are not gracious. If they are gracious, and 
men consequently have no claim to them, it is 
clear beyond dispute that no injustice is done 
by withholding them. So that what Mr. Wat¬ 
son says about the one rale of justice, does not 
apply to the case in hand. 

But Mr. Watson admits that God may and 
does make a difference in the treatment of his 
creatures concerning even spiritual blessings. 
Amongst the benefits derived to man from the 
Atonement, he mentions the revelation of the 
will of God, and the declaration of his purposes 
of grace as to man’s actual redemption. “ These 
purposes ,” he remarks, u liave been declared to 
man with great inequality we grant , a mystery 
which toe are not able to explain,”* etc. Again 
he says:—“The second kind of Election which 
we find in Scripture is the election of nations 
or bodies of people to eminent religious privi¬ 
leges, and in order to accomplish, by their supe¬ 
rior illumination, the merciful purposes of God, 
in benefitting other nations or bodies of people. 
Thus the descendants of Abraham, the Jews, 
were chosen to receive special revelations of truth, 
and to be ‘the people of God,’ to be his .visible 


* Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 23. 




OBJECTIONS STATED. 


153 


Church, and publicly to observe and uphold his 
worship.” Again:—“For Christians were the 
subjects, also, of this second kind of Election,— 
the election of bodies of men to be the visible 
people and Church of God in the world, and to 
be endowed with peculiar privileges.”* Now let 
us see how the objection lies. It is admitted, 
that God may make great differences in the be- 
stowment of temporal blessings upon different 
nations and individuals, without being a respecter 
of persons. It is also admitted, that he may 
and does choose some to peculiar religious privi¬ 
leges, of which others are left destitute,—privi¬ 
leges the design and tendency of which are to 
secure their conversion and salvation,—without 
being a respecter of persons. But it is asserted, 
that if he should go one step further, and exert 
upon some a sanctifying influence which he does 
not exert upon others, he would thereby make 
himself a respecter of persons! IIow, we ask, 
have our Arminian friends ascertained the pre¬ 
cise amount of difference God may make in the 
bestowment of his grace, without becoming a 
respecter of persons? Their position is plainly 
contradictory. They admit the principle em- 


* Theol. Inst., pt. 2. ch. 26. 



154 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

braced in the doctrine of Election, viz: that God 
makes a difference in the hestowment of his bless¬ 
ings upon men; and then directly deny it, hold¬ 
ing that to do so, would make him a respecter 
of persons I 

Now the plain truth is, that grace, from its 
very nature, must be free; and, therefore, God 
may bestow or withhold it as in his infinite wis¬ 
dom he chooses. And so long as he withholds 
from no one of his creatures anything to which 
he has a just claim, and inflicts upon no one 
more punishment than his sin deserves, and so 
long as he rejects no righteous man; no one has 
the right to find fault, or charge him with res¬ 
pecting persons. The doctrine of Election does 
not represent him as doing either of these things, 
and consequently the objection we are consider¬ 
ing is of no force whatever. 

A third objection to the doctrine of Election 
is, that it is inconsistent with the sincerity of 
God in offering salvation by Christ to all who 
hear the gospel. But if, as we believe, every 
man is a free moral agent, perfectly free to ac¬ 
cept or reject the offer of salvation, where is the 
insincerity in making the offer to all? It is ob¬ 
jected again, that according to the Calvinistic 
view, Christ made no atonement for the non- 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


155 


elect; and our Arminian friends have urged 
against the doctrine all those passages of Scrip¬ 
ture which represent Christ as having died for 
all men. But the word for , like all other prepo¬ 
sitions, has a number of meanings. What, then, 
do they mean by affirming that Christ died for 
all men? Do they mean that he made an atone¬ 
ment which, in consequence of his infinite dig¬ 
nity, is sufficient for all men? If so, we have no 
controversy with them; for we hold that the 
Atonement is of infinite value, and that no one 
is lost because its virtue is exhausted. Do they 
mean that in making an atonement Christ de¬ 
signed to offer salvation indiscriminately to all 
men? If so, we agree with them. Our views 
of the gospel require us to preach it “to every 
creature.” Do they mean that Christ really 
purposed to save all men by his death? They 
cannot mean this; for, in the first place, multi¬ 
tudes were forever lost before he died, and it will 
scarcely be pretended that he designed to save 
them. In the second place, he certainly knew 
who would believe and be saved; for he knew all 
things; and it would be absurd to say that he 
designed to save those he knew he never would 
save. What, then, we again ask, do Arminians 
mean by the declaration that Christ died for all 




156 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


men? Do they mean that he really intended 
to save no one individual , but to offer salvation 
alike to all, and to give all equal opportunities 
to accept it? They cannot mean this; for, in 
the first place, it is an undeniable fact that 
Christ has not made the offer of salvation to all. 
Multitudes have lived and died without ever so 
much as hearing his name. If it be said, the 
heathen are responsible only for the light they 
have, we cheerfully admit it; but they are deeply 
depraved and under condemnation, and the ques¬ 
tion is not whether they will be chargeable with 
the additional sin of rejecting the gospel, but 
whether they have light and divine influence 
enough to save them without the gospel. If it 
be said that the heathen are all saved without 
means, then are they in a better condition than 
if they had the gospel, and it would be cruel to 
send it to them. 

In the second place, it is certain that God has 
not given to all equal opportunities of being 
saved. For of those who have heard the gos¬ 
pel, some have far better opportunities of being 
instructed in its glorious truths, and are placed 
under much stronger influences of a religious 
character than others. We are well satisfied, 
that if Arminians, by asserting that Christ died 



OBJECTIONS STATED. 


157 


for all men, means anything more than that he 
designed to offer salvation indiscriminately to all 
who hear the gospel, they will find it difficult to 
tell what they do mean. The atonement, we 
believe, is sufficient to save all, if they would 
believe; all are free moral agents, and may ac¬ 
cept or refuse the offer of life. The gospel may, 
therefore, be sincerely offered to all, whilst they 
may be left to their own choice. 

It is true, God does not subdue their pride, 
their enmity, their unbelief, and their love of 
sin; but will it be pretended that God cannot 
sincerely offer salvation to a free moral agent, 
unless, in addition to the invitation, he by a 
special influence dispose him to accept of it? 
God invites them to come to Christ. They are 
unwilling to conic, and he lets them alone,— 
leaves them to their own inclinations. This is 
all. If it be said, God knows that without the 
special influences of his Spirit sinners will not 
come; we answer, that according to the admis¬ 
sion of Mr. Watson, he knows who will accept 
and who will reject the offer of salvation; and 
yet this knowledge is admitted to be perfectly 
consistent with sincerity in inviting those who, 
he knows, will not come. 

A fourth objection to the doctrine of Election 

14 





158 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


is, that it involves in it the damnation of infants . 
The following language of the Westminster Con¬ 
fession is appealed to in proof of the objection: 
“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated 
and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who 
worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” 
On this point we remark: It is certain that 
Presbyterians have never understood this lan¬ 
guage as teaching the doctrine of infant damna¬ 
tion. Persons have often asserted that they 
had heard the doctrine preached, but on particu¬ 
lar inquiry it has been found that their state¬ 
ments were either maliciously false, or mere 
inferences of their own from what the preacher 
said. But no respectable Presbyterian writer 
can be found, either in ancient or modern times, 
who has taught that any dying in infancy are 
lost. Calvinistic writers, it is true, hold that the 
sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity, he 
being their federal head, and that they conse¬ 
quently are involved with him in a common 
condemnation; and the more evangelical Armin- 
ians, as we have seen, hold the same doctrine. 
Calvinists, therefore, believe that infants as well 
adults are exposed to eternal death, and are 
saved only by grace through Christ Jesus. But 
no respectable Presbyterian writer, we repeat, can 



OBJECTIONS STATED. 


159 


be found who teaches that any dying in infancy 
are actually lost. The doctrine of Infant damna¬ 
tion was charged upon the Presbyterian Church 
by Alexander Campbell, in a public debate with 
the author of these pages. In reply we said:— 
“I am truly gratified that the gentleman has 
brought forward the charge against us, of hold¬ 
ing the doctrine of the damnation of infants; 
because it is believed by many who are unac¬ 
quainted with our views, lie says, our Confes¬ 
sion of Faith teaches this doctrine. This is not 
correct. It is true that it speaks of elect in¬ 
fants,— 6 Elect infants dying in infancy, are re¬ 
generated and saved by Christ through the 
Spirit.’ Are all infants, dying in infancy, elect? 
All Presbyterians who express an opinion on the 
subject, so believe. The expression, i elect in¬ 
fants,’ the gentleman seems to think, implies 
non-elect infants; but I call upon him to pro¬ 
duce one respectable Presbyterian author who 
has expressed the opinion that infants dying in 
infancy are lost. Mr. Campbell boasts of his 
familiarity with the doctrines of our Church. 
ITe, then, is the very man to make good this 
oft-repeated charge. I call for the proof. So 
far as I know the sentiments of Presbyterians 
on this subject, they believe that all that die in 


160 GOD sovereign and man free. 

infancy are of the elect,—are chosen of God to 
eternal life, and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit 
and saved according to his eternal purpose. In¬ 
fants do not die by accident. He whose provi¬ 
dence extends to the falling of a sparrow, takes 
care of every human being; and we believe that 
his purpose is to save those whom he calls from 
time before they are capable of knowing the 
truth. But the gentleman has made the charge 
that the Presbyterian Church holds the doctrine 
of the damnation of infants, and now I demand 
the proof.” In answer to this demand, repeat¬ 
edly made, Mr. Campbell quoted one or two 
passages from the writings of Calvin, and one 
from Turretine, in which those great and good 
men opposed the doctrine of the Pelagians and 
Socinians, who hold that Adam’s sin did not 
affect his posterity, and that men are not born 
in original sin; and in which they affirmed that 
all Adam’s posterity are exposed to eternal 
death, and might justly have been left to perish. 
But neither of them taught that any infant is 
in fact lost. They simply taught, that the sal¬ 
vation of all, infants as well as adults, is of grace , 
not of justice . 

We state these facts to show that the fairest 
opportunity was given to a man well qualified 


OBJECTIONS STATED. 


161 


to prove the charge true, that Presbyterians 
hold the doctrine of Infant damnation; that al¬ 
though both our challenge and our explanation 
of Presbyterian faith have been extensively cir¬ 
culated, the former has not even yet been met, 
whilst the latter has been universally approved 
by Presbyterians. If, then, Presbyterians are 
capable of understanding the language of their 
own Creed, it does not, directly or impliedly, 
teach the doctrine of Infant damnation. And 
until it can be shown that God could not pre¬ 
destinate to eternal life all those he is pleased 
to call from earth in infancy, the objection we 
are considering is of no weight whatever. 

We have now carefully examined the most 
plausible objections urged against the doctrine 
of Election, and we think they have been proved 
to be unfounded. We now proceed to the direct 
inquiry, whether this doctrine is taught in the 
sacred Scriptures. 

14 * 



CHAPTER 111. 


THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION PROVED FROM THE WORD OF GOD. 

Is the doctrine of Election," as we have stated * 
it, taught in the Scriptures? This, after all, is 
the great question. We propose to prove it 
true by clear Scripture testimony. 

I. God is the author of regeneration. Every 
true Christian has experienced a great moral 
change, commonly called regeneration, the new 
birth, the new creation, etc.; and of this change 
God is the author. Happily the more evangel¬ 
ical class of Arminians, agree with us here. John 
Wesley defines regeneration or the new birth, in 
the following language:—“It is that great change 
which God works in the soul, when he brings it 
into life; when he raises it from the death of sin 
to the life of righteousness. It is the change 
wrought in the whole soul by the Almighty spirit 
of God, when it is ‘created anew in Christ Jesus,’ 
when it is ‘renewed after the image of God in 
righteousness and true holiness,’ when the love 
of the world is changed into the love of God; 
pride into humility; passion into meekness,” etc. 
Rev. Richard Watson thus defines regeneration: 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 


163 


“It is that mighty change in man, wrought by 
the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion which 
sin has over him in his natural state, and which 
he deplores and struggles against in his penitent 
state, is broken and abolished, so that, with full 
choice of will, and the energy of right affections, 
he serves God freely, and runs in the way of his 
commandments.” 

But we need not the admission of Arminians 
on this point; for both the Bible and the expe¬ 
rience of believers do clearly teach that regener¬ 
ation is the work of God, not of man. They 
who receive Christ, are 4 born, not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
but of God.” # Of this same work Paul says: 
“God, even when we were dead in sins, hath 
quickened us together with Christ.” And again: 
“For we are his workmanship created in Christ 
Jesus unto good works, which God hath before 
ordained that we should walk in them.”| A 
multitude of passages of Scripture might be 
adduced in proof of this truth, but it is unne¬ 
cessary. 

II. God does this ivork in fulfillment of his 
purposes. When he regenerates the heart of a 


* John 1: 13. 


| Eph. 2 : 5, 8, 



164 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


sinner, he does it not accidentally , but designedly; 
and the design or purpose was formed before the 
act was done. Therefore Paul ascribes it to the 
love of God. “But God, who is rich in mercy, 
for his great love wherewith he loved us, even 
when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us 
together with Christ.” God loved us, and there¬ 
fore he determined to quicken us. But this fact 
is too clear to require or admit proof. 

III. The purpose to regenerate particular indi¬ 
viduals teas not formed because God foresaw that 
they would be better than others , or that they would 
repent and believe in Christ , but of his own sove¬ 
reign mercy . The more evangelical class of Ar- 
minians agree with us “that man is by nature 
totally corrupt and degenerate, and of himself 
incapable of any good thing,”—that all are 
“born in a state of spiritual death.”* John 
Wesley addresses the sinner in the following 
language:—“Know thyself to be a sinner, and 
what manner of sinner thou art. Know that 
corruption of thy inmost nature, whereby thou 
art very far gone from original righteousness, 
whereby ‘the flesh lusteth’ always ‘contrary to 
the spirit,’ through that ‘carnal mind’ which ‘is 


* Watson’s Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 18. 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 


165 


enmity against God/ which ‘is not subject to 
the law of God, neither indeed can be.’ Know 
that thou art corrupted in every power, in every 
faculty of thy soul; that thou art totally cor¬ 
rupted in every one of these, all the foundations 
being out of course. The eyes of thine under¬ 
standing are darkened, so that they cannot dis¬ 
cern God, or the things of God. The clouds of 
ignorance and error rest upon thee, and cover 
thee with the shadow of death. Thou knowest 
nothing yet as thou oughtest to know, neither 
God, nor the world, nor thyself. Thy will is no 
longer the will of God, but is utterly perverse 
and distorted, averse from all good, from all which 
God loves, and prone to all evil, to every abomi¬ 
nation which God hateth. Thy affections are 
alienated from God, and scattered abroad over 
all the earth. All thy passions, both thy desires 
and aversions, thy joys and sorrows, thy hopes 
and fears, are out of frame, are either undue in 
their degree, or placed on undue objects. So 
that there is no soundness in thy soul; but ‘from 
the crown of the head to the sole of the feet,’ 
(to use the strong expression of the prophet,) 
there are only ‘wounds, and bruises, and putri- 
fying sores.’ Such is the inbred corruption of 
thy heart, of thy very inmost nature. # * * * 


16b 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


And what fruits can grow on such branches as 
these? Only such as are bitter and evil contin¬ 
ually.”* Again:—“And in Adam all died, all 
human kind, all the children of men who were 
then in Adam’s loins. The natural consequence 
of this is, that every one descended from him 
comes into the world spiritually dead, dead to 
God, wholly dead in sin; entirely void of the life 
of God; void of the image of God, of all that 
righteousness and holiness wherein Adam was 
created. Instead of this, every man born into 
the world now bears the image of the devil, in 
pride and self-will; the image of the beast, in 
sensual appetites and desires. This, then, is the 
foundation of the new birth,—the entire corrup¬ 
tion of our nature. ”t 

Such is the strong language, not too strong, 
of Wesley concerning the total depravity of 
every human being in a state of nature. Now 
it is certain, that in beings of such moral char¬ 
acter God sees nothing morally good, nothing 
of holiness; and consequently no one can be re¬ 
generated because of his being morally better 
than others. There is no real goodness in any 


* Sermon on the Way to the Kingdom. + Sermon on 
New Birth. 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 


1 07 


human being before regeneration, and therefore 
God could not have purposed to regenerate any 
one because he foresaw that there would be in 
him more goodness or holiness than other sin¬ 
ners possess. Mr. Wesley himself maintains 
that the new birth “is the first point of sanctifi¬ 
cation.”* If there were any true holiness in 
any soul before regeneration, that soul would 
not be dead in sin, and therefore could not be 
quickened or made alive. It might become more 
holy, but it could not be regenerated , because 
regeneration is the beginning of holiness in the 
heart, and sanctification is the progress of the 
work begun in regeneration. 

After reading the strong declarations of Meth¬ 
odist writers concerning the total depravity of 
all men by nature, and concerning the nature of 
regeneration, we cannot but be astonished to 
find them contending earnestly that sinners do 
exercise true repentance and saving faith before 
they are regenerated, and that God regenerates 
them because of their repentance and faith. 
This error (for such we must consider it,) forms 
one of the most effective reasons for the rejec¬ 
tion of the doctrine of Election, and for the prac- 


* Sermon on God’s Vineyard. 



168 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

tice of receiving unregenerate persons called 
Seekers into the Church. 

Let us examine the question briefly. Do 
sinners exercise true evangelical repentance and 
saving faith before they are regenerated? What 
is the nature of repentance? That there is a 
kind of repentance exercised by unconverted 
men, we do not deny. Judas, when he saw that 
the Saviour, whom he had betrayed, was con¬ 
demned, “ repented himself, and brought again 
the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and 
elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have be¬ 
trayed the innocent blood;” but the repentance 
of Judas was of no avail. It was the anguish 
caused by the lashings of a guilty conscience, 
and by the fearful looking for of the judgment of 
God. The worst men often have such repent¬ 
ance, and lost spirits never cease to feel it. It 
is a sorrow that “worketh death.” 

But true repentance is a change of mind; for 
such is the meaning of the Greek word metanoia , 
translated repentance . In the true penitent 
there is a change of views , and a corresponding 
change of affections. Sin appears in its true 
light, and is hated, deplored, confessed, and for¬ 
saken. The language of genuine repentance is: 
“Father, I have sinned against heaven and be- 


DOCTRINE PROVED. 


169 


fore thee, and am no more worthy to be called 
thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.”* 
The publican was a true penitent, when “ stand¬ 
ing afar off, he would not lift up so much as his 
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, 
saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”t Now, 
what is the moral character of this repentance? 
It certainly springs from correct views of human 
obligation and of sin against God. Sin is seen 
to be hateful, and is hated. Genuine sorrow is 
felt in view of sin committed against God. Hum¬ 
ble confession is made, sin abandoned, and for¬ 
giveness sought. Are not such feelings morally 
right? Can a child give better evidence of affec¬ 
tion for a father, than that he sincerely sorrows 
for his disobedience, confesses it, and returns to 
his duty? Does he not thus afford as strong 
evidence of filial affection, as when he is happy 
in the smiles of his father? Is it not true, that 
the more depraved men are, the less genuine re¬ 
pentance they feel for their sins? And is it not 
equally true, that the more piety they have, the 
more deeply they repent, when made sensible of 
having done wrong? Concerning the moral 
character of repentance, we must take one of 


* Luke 15: 18, 19. 

15 


| Luke 18: 13. 




170 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


three positions, viz: It possesses no moral char¬ 
acter at all, and is consequently worthless; or it 
is bad, and therefore aggravates the condemna¬ 
tion of the penitent; or it is good. No one can 
believe, either that it is indifferent or bad; it is, 
therefore, perfectly clear that it is morally good. 
Hence God has made precious promises to the 
true penitent. “But to this man will I look, 
even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, 
and trembleth at my word.”* “The sacrifices 
of God are a broken spirit : a broken and a con¬ 
trite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise.”f 
When Peter related to the Church at Jerusalem 
the circumstances attending the admission of 
Cornelius and his family to the Christian Church, 
“they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, 
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted re- 
pentance unto Uf&'X 

We come, then, to the conclusion, that repent¬ 
ance flows from love to God and hatred of sin,— 
that it is morally good,—that in the exercise of 
repentance, men render true obedience to God. 
Now, is it possible for a heart totally depraved, 
“dead in trespasses and sins,” to exercise such 
repentance? If repentance is morally good, the 


* Isai. 66: 2. 


|Ps. 51: 17. | Acts 11: 18. 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 


171 


heart that repents has something of moral good¬ 
ness or holiness, and is therefore spiritually alive; 
for holiness is spiritual life, as depravity is spir¬ 
itual death. Such a heart has been regenerated; 
and repentance, which is morally good, is one of 
the fruits of that change. For, as Mr. Wesley 
well declares, holiness “cannot commence in the 
soul till that change be wrought,—till by the 
power of the Highest overshadowing us, we are 
‘brought from darkness to light, from the power 
of Satan unto God;’ that is, till we are born 
again; which, therefore, is absolutely necessary 
in order to holiness.”* 

Let us place this argument in another light. 
True repentance flows from love to God . There 
can be but three causes of repentance. It may 
be merely the result - of the lashings of a guilty 
conscience, or simple remorse; or it may arise 
from a guilty conscience and the dread of future 
punishment; or it may be chiefly from love to 
God. The repentance which flows from the two 
first-named causes, may be and often is expe¬ 
rienced by the worst men, such as Judas Iscariot, 
and could in no degree contribute to the soul’s 
salvation. It is not the repentance which God 


* Sermon on New Birth. 



172 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


requires. But if true repentance flows from love 
to God, the penitent is regenerated; for “every 
one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth 
God.” # 

Again, repentance is pleasing to God; for it is 
obedience to his command, and life is promised 
on condition of it. But “they that are in the 
flesh cannot please God.” All persons are 
either in the flesh or in the spirit; and Paul 
says:—“Ye are not in the flesh, but in the 
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in 
you.”| All, therefore, are in the flesh who have 
not the Spirit of God dwelling in them,—who 
are unrenewed; and they cannot please God. 
The argument is clear and conclusive. They 
who are in the flesh (unregenerate,) cannot please 
God. But true penitents do please him. There¬ 
fore true penitents are not unregenerate. 

It is equally easy to prove that saving faith 
does not precede regeneration, but is one of its 
fruits. What is the nature of Christian faith? 
Is it a mere intellectual conviction of the truth? 
If it were, it would not differ materially from the 
faith of devils. But “with the heart man believ- 
eth unto righteousness-’’^ True faith enlists the 


* 1 John 4: 7. f Rom. 8: 8, 9. {Rom. 10: 10. 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 


173 


affections as well as the intellect; it “worketh 
by love.” Mr. Wesley himself declares, that the 
faith through which we are saved, is distinguish¬ 
ed from the faith of a devil by this, that “it is 
not barely a speculative, rational thing, a cold, 
lifeless assent, a train of ideas in the head, but 
also a disposition of the heart.”* Now if saving- 
faith is an exercise of the heart, loving God, as 
well as of the intellect, weighing evidence, it is 
certainly a fruit of regeneration; for “every one 
that loveth is born of God.” Let this argument 
be carefully weighed. Either the true believer 
loves God, or he does not. If he does not, his 
faith does not differ essentially from that of devils. 
If he does, he is regenerated; for so declares the 
Apostle John in the passage just quoted. More¬ 
over, “love is the fulfilling of the law” of God, 
and therefore love is holiness. Consequently 
every one who loves God, has something of holi¬ 
ness, which, it is admitted, none have before 
regeneration. 

The doctrine of the Methodist Church is, that 
the sinner first exercises true faith, and after¬ 
wards is regenerated; but the Scriptures do 
plainly teach the converse; that is, that the sin- 


* Sermon or) Salvation by Faith, 

15 * 



174 GOD sovereign and man free. 

ner is regenerated, and, as an effect of regenera¬ 
tion, immediately exercises faith; just as when 
our Saviour raised Lazarus from the dead, he 
was first made alive, and then began to breathe 
and perform other living acts. “Whosoever be- 
lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” # 
It is not said that he who believes shall he re¬ 
generated, quickened, or born again. Regenera¬ 
tion is never promised on condition of believing, 
but the exercise of faith is declared to be con¬ 
clusive evidence that regeneration has already 
taken place; just the fact that a man who has 
been hurt, breathes, is clear evidence that he is 
alive. 

If, then, it is true, as it certainly is, that be¬ 
fore regeneration there is nothing morally good 
in men,—that they do not exercise true repent¬ 
ance or saving faith; it follows inevitably, that 
when God regenerates the heart of a sinner, he 
does not perform this work on account of any 
moral goodness in him, or because he is better 
than others. Of his own mercy and for reasons 
not made known to us, he performs the work. 
He did not purpose to do this work because he 
foresaw that the sinner would repent and believe 




DOCTRINE PROVED. 


175 


the gospel ? for until he is regenerated he exer¬ 
cises neither repentance nor faith. 

It is, then, clear, first, that God is the author 
of regeneration; secondly, that he regenerates 
the hearts of men not accidentally, but design¬ 
edly; and, thirdly, that the purpose to regener¬ 
ate any sinner was not formed on the ground of 
repentance and faith foreseen, but of the sove¬ 
reign mercy of God, and for reasons not revealed 
to us. 

TV. The purposes of God to regenerate any 
of the human race are eternal. All his purposes, 
as we have proved in the first part of this work, 
are eternal. Let us again place the point dis¬ 
tinctly before our minds. God regenerates the 
heart of a sinner to-day, and he does this work 
in fulfillment of a gracious purpose . This is a 
wise purpose, founded upon the best reasons, 
though they may be unknown to us. When 
was this purpose formed? Has God learned 
anything concerning this man which he did not 
always know ? Certainly not, for then he would 
not be omniscient. But since all intelligent pur¬ 
poses are formed in view of reasons , and since 
all the reasons in view of which this purpose was 
formed were from eternity before the Divine 
Mind, the purpose itself must be eternal. As 



176 GOD sovereign and man free. 

already proved, every new purpose formed, and 
every change of purpose, proclaims the being 
forming or changing it imperfect. 

Nor can any one reasonably object to the 
eternity of the Divine purposes. If the work 
done is a good work, (and certainly Christians 
and angels rejoice in it as such,) there can be no 
possible objection to the doctrine that God al¬ 
ways designed doing it. The purpose to do a 
good work is a good purpose, for which God is 
to be praised. Every objection against the eter¬ 
nity of the Divine purpose to renew a sinner’s 
heart, lies with equal force against the formation 
of such purpose at all. If the decree of Election 
destroys the free agency of the person chosen to 
life, the result would be the same if the purpose 
exist one month, one day, one hour, one moment 
before the work is done. If there be anything 
unjust in it, the injustice is in the purpose itself, 
not in the period of its formation. It is wrong 
for a man to determine to do an unjust thing, 
but it matters not whether such determination 
be formed years or moments before it is execu¬ 
ted. The length of time changes not the moral 
character of the purpose. 

In these four propositions the doctrine of Elec¬ 
tion is fully embraced. God is the author of 


DOCTRINE PROVED. 


177 


regeneration. In every case he performs the 
work designedly, not accidentally . His purpose 
to regenerate the heart of any sinner is not 
founded upon anything good foreseen in him,— 
on any foresight of faith or repentance. God 
formed the purpose before the world began. 
The sum of the four propositions is, that God 
from eternity purposed to renew, sanctify and 
save a certain portion of the human race for the 
glory of his sovereign grace. Which of these 
propositions can be successfully assailed? Will 
it be denied that God is the author of regenera¬ 
tion? But this truth is admitted by the more 
evangelical Arminians, such as Wesley and Wat¬ 
son; and to deny it, is to run into fundamental 
error. Will it be said that God does this work 
accidentally , not designedly ? None will take a 
position so absurcBpWill it be asserted that 
God regenerates only those in whom he sees 
something morally good, as repentance and faith? 
Then you have moral goodness or holiness before 
regeneration,—life before quickening,—or living 
acts before life. This is too absurd to be main¬ 
tained for a moment. Will it be denied that the 
purpose to regenerate is eternal? But is not 
Election in time just as objectionable as Election 
in eternity ? Besides, if God forms new purposes, 




178 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

he must gain new knowledge, and is, conse¬ 
quently, an imperfect, mutable Being! There 
is no way of escape from the doctrine without 
running into the most serious, if not funda¬ 
mental error. This assertion will be more fully 
proved in the next chapter. 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED AND THE PRACTICAL 


IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE SHOWN. 


No Christian, we believe, objects to the doc¬ 
trine of Election, provided he understands it. 
All the truly pious .ejoice to acknowledge God 
as the author of the great change which has 
passed, upon them; and all acknowledge that 
they were not renewed in heart be<‘"‘ f any 
good existing in them, or done by -m. With 
the grateful Psalmist they all saj Not unto 
us, 0 Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give 
glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.”* 
And with Paul,—-“ p y the grace of God I am 
what I am.”t And surely no one would be less 
grateful,“if assured that God always designed to 
renew his heart and lead him to Christ. 

But the doctrine of Reprobation , as it is called, 
presents difficulties to the minds of many. 
What is this doctrine? The Confession of Faith 
teaches that “The rest of mankind [not elected] 
God was pleased, according to {lie unsearchable 
counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth 


*Ps. 115: 1. 


1 1 Cor. 5: 10, 



180 GOD sovereign and man free. 

or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the 
glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, 
to pass by and to ordain them to dishonor and 
wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious 
justice.” Now Arminians agree with us, that 
on the day of judgment God will pronounce sen¬ 
tence of eternal condemnation upon multitudes 
of men. “Then shall he say unto them on the 
left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into ever¬ 
lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 
And these shall go away into everlasting pun¬ 
ishment.” Will this fearful sentence be just? 
Arminians agree with us that it will, because it 
will be a sentence of merited punishment for 
their sin . Then can there be any objection to 
saying, that God purposed from eternity to pro¬ 
nounce this just sentence? He foresaw the sin 
of the finally impenitent, and for their sin he 
purposed to inflict upon them the just penalty 
of his law. Can any one object to this? Can 
it be unjust in God to purpose to do a just act? 

But it will be objected, that according to our 
doctrine, God passed by the non-elect, and did 
not give them thfe grace necessary to lead them 
to repentance, and then condemns them for not 
doing what they could not possibly do. To this 
Dbiection we have two answers to make, vizi: 



IMPORTANCE SHOWN. 


181 


L Every man is, from the very nature of his 
mind, a free moral agent, and therefore justly 
held accountable for all his actions. Every one 
is bound to obey God, and if he refuse, is justly 
exposed to the penalty of the moral law. 

2. Even Arminians are obliged to acknowl¬ 
edge that God does make great differences in 
the treatment of the human family, not only in 
the distribution of temporal blessings, but of 
spiritual gifts also,—a difference which compels 
them, if they would be consistent, to hold the 
doctrine of Election. As we have already seen, 
they hold to the doctrine of a particular provi¬ 
dence, and to a divine election of individuals and 
nations to peculiar religious privileges. Rev. 
Richard Watson says of God’s providential dis¬ 
pensations:—“These dispensations are not only 
instruments of prevention, but designed means 
of salvation, preparatory to and co-operative with 
those agencies by which that result can only be 
directly produced.” The same writer says:— 
“Another benefit granted for the same end, is 
the revelation of the will of God and the decla¬ 
ration of his purposes of grace as to man’s actual 
redemption. These purposes have been declared 
to man, with great inequality we grant, a mys¬ 
tery which we are not able to explain; but we 
18 





182 GOD sovereign and man free. 

have the testimony of God in his own word, 
though we cannot in many cases trace the pro¬ 
cess of the revelation, that in no case, that in no 
nation ‘has he left himself without witness.’ ”* 
Now observe, it is a fact admitted by Mr. Wat¬ 
son, a fact indeed which none can deny, that 
God in his providence bestows upon some indi¬ 
viduals and upon some nations the abundant 
means of salvation, which ^re withheld from 
others. In our country, for example, all have 
access to the written word of God, and the great 
majority may hear the voice of the ordained 
ministers of Christ expounding his word and 
calling them to repentance; and may attend upon 
the ordinances of his house. In pagan lands, 
multitudes just as depraved as we, and therefore 
needing all the advantages we enjoy to bring 
them to repentance, have no knowledge what¬ 
ever of God’s written word,—do not even know 
that such a book as the Bible exists,—never hear 
the voice of the living ministry; but have been 
born and reared under the influence of a dark, 
degrading and cruel superstition. Now, will any 
one pretend that those benighted pagans have 
opportunities of being saved equal to ours? 

-- p. - 

*Theof. Inst., pt. 2. ch. 23. 




importance shown. 


18 : 


They are as deeply depraved as the people of 
Christian countries. Are the same or equally 
powerful influences brought to bear upon them 
to lead them to God, and engage them in his 
service? Let us admit, though it cannot be 
proved, that the Holy Spirit exerts upon the 
minds of such persons the same degree of influ¬ 
ence which is exerted upon those who enjoy 
abundantly the means of grace; yet is that de¬ 
gree of influence, in the absence of the written 
word and the ordinances of the gospel, at all 
equal to that exerted by these means upon per¬ 
sons in Christian lands? Certainly not. Now 
the influence exerted in connection with the ap¬ 
pointed means of grace, does result in the con¬ 
version and salvation of many. Is it not fair, 
then, to conclude that if the same means were 
employed in pagan lands, a much larger number 
would be saved, than without them? If not, 
we are forced to the conclusion, that the preach¬ 
ing of the gospel is of no importance, except in 
the moralizing and happy influence it exerts in 
the present life. But if there is abundant evi¬ 
dence that the heathen would in great numbers 
turn to God, if they were brought under the 
same influences we in Christian lands enjoy, then 
does it not follow that God, in his all-wise prov- 





184 GOD sovereign and man free. 

idence haying not sent them the gospel, has 
really passed by them and left them to perish? 
If the sending of the gospel to a people, with 
the divine influence accompanying it, does not 
amount to a personal election , most assuredly the 
withholding of it from a people amounts gener¬ 
ally to reprobation . 

We readily admit with Mr. Wesley, that “in¬ 
asmuch as to them [the heathen] little is given, 
of them little will be required,”—that “no more 
will be expected of them, than the living up to 
the light they had.”* But they are totally de¬ 
praved as others, and love to sin as much as 
‘ others. And as a matter of fact, they are gen¬ 
erally extremely degraded. For example, Mr. 
Wesley describes the inhabitants of the South 
Sea Islands as “heathens of the basest sort, many 
of them inferior to the beasts of the field,” as 
“more savage than lions,” and exclaims:—“See 
the real dignity of human nature! Here it ap¬ 
pears in its genuine purity, not polluted either 
by those ‘general corrupters, kings,’ or by the 
least tincture of religion!” The Mohammedans 
he describes as “in general as utter strangers to 
all true religion as their four-footed brethren; as 


* Sermon on Faith, 



IMPORTANCE SHOWN. 


185 


void of mercy as lions and tigers ; as much given 
up to brutal lusts as bulls and goats; so that they 
are in truth a disgrace to human nature, and a 
plague to all that are under the iron yoke. ,,# 
Now does not the leaving of the heathen and 
the Mohammedans in this degraded state, desti¬ 
tute of the light of the gospel, amount in effect 
to passing by them and leaving them to perish 
in their sins? Such certainly, is the truth at 
least in a multitude of instances. God has left 
them in this state, and he of course purposed to 
do what he has done. 

But the difference which God makes as to the 
means of grace ana salvation, are not confined, 
to nations or bodies of people. In Christian 
countries, where all enjoy the means of grace to 
some extent, those means are enjoyed by fami¬ 
lies and individuals in very different degrees. 
Some enjoy the inestimable blessing of being 
born of pious parents, of being taught the glo¬ 
rious doctrines and principles of Christianity 
from infancy, and of bowing from day to day 
around the family altar. And from early child¬ 
hood they are guarded against corrupting senti¬ 
ments and influences, receive the instructions of 


* Sermon on the General Spread of the Gospel. 
16 * 






186 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


the Sabbath-school, and sit under an able, evan¬ 
gelical and faithful ministry. Others are born 
of degraded and vicious parents, from early child¬ 
hood imbibe false principles, and form their char¬ 
acter under demoralizing influences, discouraged 
if not prevented from enjoying the means of 
grace at all. Between these extremes the means 
of salvation are enjoyed in various degrees by 
different families and individuals. And these 
privileges, let it not be forgotten, like those 
which exist in different nations, depend in no 
degree upon the moral character or conduct of 
the individuals whose eternal destiny is so inti¬ 
mately connected with them. As one man is 
born in the midst of the degrading idolatry of 
India without any particular fault of his, so is 
another born in the United States of America 
without any merit entitling him to so great a 
privilege. And so one is born of Infidel parents 
and in the midst of vice, and another under pure 
Christian influence, without any difference as to ill 
desert or merit. It cannot be denied, then, that 
the means of grace are enjoyed in vastly different 
degrees by different individuals; that God has 
chosen to make this difference in his providence, 
without any foresight of goodness in the favored 
class, or of peculiar demerit in the other. 


IMPORTANCE SHOWN. 


187 


Now, that the force of the argument may be 
distinctly seen, let us select two individuals from 
the two classes. One, we will suppose, is the 
son of eminently wise and godly parents, by 
whom he is from infancy trained up in the nur^ 
ture and admonition of the Lord, and who afford 
to him every opportunity of being taught the 
truth as it is in Jesus, and are careful to bring 
him under the power of the gospel in every prac¬ 
ticable way, whilst he is the subject of their con¬ 
stant and fervent prayers. The other is born of 
parents who reject, ridicule and despise Christi¬ 
anity, and who are careful to prevent his being 
brought under the power of the gospel. His 
character is formed under the influence of cor¬ 
rupt sentiments, and of evil and corrupting ex¬ 
ample. The tendency of all his associations is 
to withdraw him entirely from Christianity. The 
former becomes a devoted Christian, and spends 
his days in the service of his Redeemer. The 
latter embraces the corrupt sentiments inculca¬ 
ted in childhood, follows the evil example set 
him, lives in wickedness and dies impenitent. 
The one is saved, the other lost. Now will any 
one deny that there is a vast difference in the 
influences favorable to salvation brought to bear 
on these two persons? Will any one deny that 



188 GOD sovereign and man free. 

the opportunities of being saved enjoyed by the 
former, are far greater than those enjoyed by the 
latter? Will it not be admitted by every candid 
individual, that if the two had changed places, 
they would probably have changed characters 
also?—that if the son of the godly parents had 
been the son of infidels, and had lived under the 
same corrupting influences, he would, in all pro¬ 
bability, have died in his sins? But God in his 
mysterious providence placed them under widely 
different influences, and the results are widely 
different. And 1 did he not foresee these differ¬ 
ent results even before either was born? Most 
assuredly. Then does not the difference provi¬ 
dentially made, amount to an election of the one 
to life and salvation, and a passing by the other, 
leaving him in his sins? 

Take another case of frequent occurrence. A 
thoughtless individual is induced to go to the 
house of God, which he is not accustomed to 
attend. The subject of discourse is precisely 
adapted to his character. He is deeply impress¬ 
ed, and becomes a disciple of Christ. Those who 
believe in a special providence, will admit that 
God sent the sinner to hear this discourse. 
There are others in the same state of mind, who, 
had they heard the same discourse, might have 


IMPORTANCE SHOWN. 


189 


been similarly affected; just as the Saviour said 
concerning Sodom, that if the mighty works 
done in Capernaum had been done in that city, 
it would not have been destroyed. A difference 
is made providentially, upon which turns the sal¬ 
vation of souls. It amounts to an election of 
the one, and a passing by of the others. 

There is a time in the life of every one who 
becomes a Christian, when a deeper impression 
than ever before is made on his mind, which re¬ 
sults in his determination to receive Jesus Christ 
as his Saviour. This deeper impression is made 
either by an extraordinary influence of the Holy 
Spirit, or by peculiar circumstances or occur¬ 
rences, or by both combined. If the impression 
be caused by an extraordinary influence of the 
Spirit, which is not exerted in an equal degree 
on others, it amounts to an election or an “ effec¬ 
tual calling” in the one case, and a passing by 
in the others. If it be caused by peculiar prov¬ 
idential circumstances or occurrences which do 
not attend others, the result is the same,—it 
amounts to an election. If it be caused by the 
combined influence of the Spirit and of peculiar 
circumstances, it is still the same. For in either 
case an influence is exerted which effects the 
conversion of the one individual, and which, had 


190 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

it been exerted equally, might have effected the 
conversion of others. For example, Saul of Tar¬ 
sus was arrested on his way to Damascus by a 
light brighter than the sun, and by the voice of 
the Son of God; and he was converted. Now 
if the doctrine be true, that the sinner exercises 
repentance and faith before he is regenerated, 
we may say with certainty that there have been 
multitudes who have died in sin, who, if they had 
been arrested in the same manner, would have 
been converted. But God chose thus to arrest 
Saul, for the glory of his grace, and to pass by 
others,—knowing what the results would be. 
If, then he chose to make so great a difference 
in his treatment of individuals, knowing the re¬ 
sult, did he not choose Saul of Tarsus to salva¬ 
tion, and pass by others? 

In a word, our Arminian friends must deny the 
doctrine of a particular providence, and deny that 
the enjoyment of the means of grace has any in¬ 
fluence in securing the salvation of men; or they 
must cease to oppose the doctrine of Election. 

What now is the precise difference between 
the Methodists and the Presbyterians on this 
subject? Is it, that according to Methodists, 
God in his providential dispensations treats all 
alike, whilst, according to Presbyterians and 


IMPORTANCE SHOWN. 


191 


other Calvinists, he makes a difference by giving 
to some blessings which he gives not to others? 
No; the Methodists acknowledge that he makes 
great differences; and here they agree with ns. 
Do the Methodists hold that the means of sal¬ 
vation are granted equally to all, whilst Calvin¬ 
ists hold that in this respect God makes great 
differences? No; the Methodists ascknowledge 
that he has chosen both nations and individuals 
to peculiar religious privileges, which he has not 
conferred on others; and here^again they agree 
with us. Do the Methodists hold that these 
differences depend upon the moraTcharacter of 
nations or of individuals, whilst Calvinists hold 
that God in the bestowment of religious privi¬ 
leges acts as a sovereign? No; they do not 
pretend that one child was born of pious parents 
because of its merit, and another of infidel pa¬ 
rents as a punishment of its demerit. They ad¬ 
mit that the election of bodies of people and of 
individuals to peculiar religious privileges, is 
sovereign and unconditional. “ God has a right,” 
says Mr. Watson, “to elect whom he pleases to 
enjoy special privileges; in this there is no un¬ 
righteousness.”* Both Arminians and Calvin- 


Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 26. 



192 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


its hold, that as to the means of salvation, God 
makes a great difference in the treatment of na¬ 
tions and of individuals; but Calvinists believe 
that God exerts on the minds of some a more 
powerful influence of his Spirit than upon others, 
thus inducing the former to choose the way of 
life to the glory of his sovereign grace. In other 
words, both Calvinists and Arminians agree that 
God makes great differences in the influences he 
brings to bear upon the minds of different indi- 
vidualjyto effect their conversion; but Calvinists 
believe the difference to be somewhat greater 
than Arminians are disposed to allow. Indeed 
if Mr. Wesley is a fair representative of Armin- 
ian Methodism, the difference is even less than I 
have stated. For after speaking of God’s as¬ 
sisting sinners to make a happy choice, he says: 
“Not that I deny that there are exempt cases, 
wherein 

‘ The overwhelming power of saving grace ’ 

does for a time work as irresistibly as lightning 
falling from heaven. But I speak of God’s gen¬ 
eral manner of working,”* etc. Now, no Calvin¬ 
ist would or could use stronger language than 


* Sermon on the General Spread of the Gospel. 




IMPORTANCE SHOWN. 


193 


this, concerning "effectual calling.” If it he 
true that God exerts upon some persons a con¬ 
verting influence irresistible as lightning, most 
certainly they are regenerated. And if he pur¬ 
posed to exert such an influence, he purposed to 
regenerate them; and this is, to all intents and 
purposes, the doctrine of Election. For if such 
an influence may be exerted in one case, why 
not in another? 

The truth is, Methodists and other Arminians 
of the more evangelical clasdl hold too much 
evangelical truth to oppose with any consistency 
the doctrine of Election. Those who deny the 
doctrines of Divine providence, imputation, origi¬ 
nal sin, and regeneration, stand in a much better 
position to assail it. It has always been associ¬ 
ated with the fundamental doctrines of Christi¬ 
anity, and the opposers of these doctrines have 
ever been amongst its most zealous and consis¬ 
tent assailants. 


17 


CHAPTER V. 


THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 

Having answered the most plausible objections 
to the doctrine of Election, and having presented 
some conclusive evidence that it is clearly taught 
in the Scriptures, we proceed to the considera¬ 
tion of a number of passages of Scripture not 
yet noticed, which seem to us to establish it be¬ 
yond reasonable doubt. We design to present 
and examine the interpretations given of those 
passages by eminent Armmian writers, and we 
invite the reader’s particular attention to the in¬ 
quiry, whether Arminians or Calvinists give the 
more plain and obvious interpretation. This is 
a matter of great importance; for it cannot be 
doubted, that the apparent and obvious meaning 
of the language of the inspired writers, is gener¬ 
ally its true meaning; and those doctrines are 
much to be suspected which can be sustained 
only by far-fetched and ingenious interpreta¬ 
tions. 

I Let us first examine the passages in which 
those who become believers are represented as 
given to Christ. “All that the Father givet.h 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


195 


me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to 
me, I will in no wise cast out.”* Two things 
are clear from this passage, viz: first, that some 
persons are given by the Father to the Son; and, 
second, that all such persons will certainly come 
to him, or will believe in him. Dr. Adam Clarke 
explains the passage thus: “Those who come 
at the call of God, he is represented here as 
giving to Christ , because it is through his blood 
alone, that they can be saved. * * * Our 

Lord may here also refer to the calling of the 
Gentiles; for these according to the ancient 
promise, (Ps. ii.) were given to Christ; and 
they, on the preaching of the gospel, gladly 
came unto him.” Now as to the first part of 
this exposition, it is palpably incorrect. For 
the Saviour says, all that the Father giveth, 
shall come; but Dr. Clarke makes him say, all 
that come to Christ the Father gives to him. In 
our Saviour’s language, the giving is first and the 
coming is consequent upon it; but in Dr. Clarke’s 
interpretation, the coming is first and the giving 
is consequent upon it. He makes the Saviour 
say precisely the reverse of what he intended to 
say. But if our Lord refers to the calling of 


* John 6: 37. 



196 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

the Gentiles , as the Doctor supposed, then all 
the Gentiles must come to him; but the Gentiles 
have not all come to him. Nor indeed is there 
the slightest evidence of any such reference. 

Dr. Whitby expounds the passage thus:—“To 
be given of the Father is to be convinced by the 
miracles which God had wrought by him to tes¬ 
tify the truth of his mission, and thereby to set 
his seal unto him, that he was the Messiah, the 
Bon of God; and to be willing upon these testi¬ 
monies to own him as such, laying aside all those 
unreasonable prejudices and carnal affections 
which obstructed their coming to him.” This 
is truly a remarkable exposition. To be given , 
says Dr. Whitby, is to be convinced , and to be 
willing to act accordingly! How did he discover 
that the word give is synonimous with the words 
convince and ivillingt Surely we need not spend 
time in refuting such an interpretation. 

Rev. Richard Watson, not satisfied with these 
interpretations of his Arminian brethren, adopts 
an entirely different one. He says, the phrase, 
to be “given” by the Father to Christ, had a 
special application to those pious Jews who 
waited for redemption at Jerusalem: those who 
read and believed the writings of Moses, and who 
were thus prepared, by more spiritual views than 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


197 

the rest, though they were not unmixed with ob¬ 
scurity, to receive Christ as the Messiah. * * * 
Taught of the Father, led into the sincere belief 
and general spiritual understanding of the Scrip- 
tuies as to the Messiah, when Christ appeared 
they were 'drawn’ and 'given’ to him as the 
now visible and accredited Head, Teacher, Lord 
and Saviour of the Church.”* There are two 
insuperable objections to this interpretation, viz: 
1. Without the least evidence to support it, it 
gives to phraseology which is general in its ob¬ 
vious meaning, a particular and very limited ap¬ 
plication. Even Mr. Watson would not deny 
that multitudes, besides the few Jews who were 
then enlightened, were given to Christ. This 
the Saviour teaches, when he, in that remarkable 
prayer in the seventeenth chapter of the gospel 
by John, says:—"As thou hast given him power 
over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to 
as many as thou hast given him.” Why, then, 
when the Saviour speaks of all that the Father 
giveth him, should his meaning be restricted to 
a few individuals? 2. But this interpretation is 
inconsistent with the context. In the thirty- 
ninth verse he says:—"And this is the Father’s 


*Theol. Inst., pt. 2 , ch. 27. 


17 * 



198 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

will which hath sent me, that of all which he 
hath given me I should lose nothing, but should 
raise it up again at the last day.” This lan¬ 
guage, as Dr. Clarke admits, has reference to all 
believers in all ages. He gives the sense of it 
thus:—“It is the will of God, that every soul 
who believes should continue in the faith, and 
have a resurrection unto life eternal.” Why 
should the phrase “all that the Father giveth,” 
be confined in its meaning to a few individuals 
in the thirty-seventh verse, and the same phrase 
in the thirty-ninth verse be understood to refer 
to all who believe in all ages? 

Evidently the three different interpretations 
of this passage, given by these three eminent 
Arminian writers, are forced and inconsistent. 
What is its obvious meaning? Certainly it 
means, that the Father has given some of the 
human race to the Son, and that all such will 
believe in him. God sent his Son into the world 
to become “a man of sorrows and acquainted 
with grief,”—to die a most painful and ignomin¬ 
ious death. These sufferings were not to be in 
vain. The promise of the Father was that “he 
shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satis¬ 
fied.” By the quickening power of the Holy 
Spirit, those given to him should be willing to 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


199 


receive him. He would effectually call them, 
and they would willingly come. This passage, 
then, and the other passages containing similar 
phraseology, evidently teach the doctrine of 
Election. 

II. There is another class of Scripture pass¬ 
ages, which teach that those who become believers 
in Christ, were chosen or elected before the foun¬ 
dation of the zvorld. “Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath bless¬ 
ed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly 
places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us 
in him, before the foundation of the world, that 
we should be holy and without blame before him 
in love: having predestinated us unto the adop¬ 
tion of children by Jesus Christ unto himself, 
according to the good pleasure of his will, to the 
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath 
made us accepted in the beloved.”* The apos¬ 
tle praises God, because of the abundant spiritual 
blessings he had bestowed upon himself and the 
Ephesian Christians. These blessings had been 
bestowed in accordance with a Divine purpose 
formed before the foundation of the world, viz: 
that they should be sanctified, and that they 


Eph. 1: 3-5. 



200 GOD sovereign and man free. 

should enjoy the adoption of children. God pur¬ 
posed to sanctify them and to adopt them as his 
children, and therefore he bestowed upon them 
“all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in 
Christ.” These things God purposed to do, not 
because of foreseen faith and works, but “accord¬ 
ing to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise 
of the glory of his grace.” Such appears to be 
the obvious meaning of the language of the 
apostle. 

Mr. Watson admits that the apostle in this 
passage speaks of Election “as the means of 
faith, and of faith as the end of election;” but 
he contends that he does not speak of personal 
election , but of “the collective election of the 
whole body of Christians.” The apostle, he says, 
speaks “of the election of believing Jews and 
Gentiles into the Church of God; in other words, 
of the eternal purpose of God, upon the publica¬ 
tion of the gospel, to constitute his visible Church 
no longer upon the ground of natural descent 
from Abraham, but upon the foundation of faith 
in Christ.”* Mr. Watson agrees with Calvinists 
on the following points, viz: 1. That the pur¬ 

pose of God here mentioned, is properly eternal . 


*Theol. Inst., pt. 2, ch. 26. 



ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


201 


2. That the election is not founded upon foreseen 
faith, but is in order to faith, and faith is its end. 
But he will have it an election of believing Jews 
and Gentiles, to constitute the Church of Christ. 
To this interpretation there are insuperable ob¬ 
jections. The apostle says not a word about 
the constituting of this visible Church, and not 
a word about choosing either Jews or Gentiles 
to be in the Church. He speaks, first, of an 
election unto holiness ,—“that we should be holy 
and without blame before him in love.” Now 
holiness is a thing strictly personal , and so is 
love; and therefore an election to holiness and 
to love, can be nothing else than a personal elec¬ 
tion. Again, this is an election “unto the adop¬ 
tion of children .” But believers as individuals, 
and such only, are adopted as God’s children; 
and therefore the election unto the adoption of 
children must be a personal election. Moreover, 
the apostle uses the personal pronoun us, show¬ 
ing that he meant to speak only of persons , not 
of Jews and Gentiles generally. Besides, Mr. 
Watson’s exposition of the passage is contradic¬ 
tory. He admits that the election here spoken 
of, is an election unto faith, —an election “as a 
means of faith;” and yet he contends that it is 
an election “of believing Jews and Gentiles into 






202 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

the Church of God.” If it is an election in order 
to faith, how can it be an election of believer s'! 
The Calvinistic interpretation of this portion of 
Scripture is evidently in accordance with the ob¬ 
vious meaning of the language of Inspiration. 
Before the foundation of the world God purposed 
to renew and sanctify these Ephesian Christians, 
that they might be “holy and without blame be¬ 
fore him in love,” and to grant unto them the 
adoption of children. This purpose was not 
founded upon faith and obedience foreseen, for 
they were chosen in order that they might be 
holy; and faith is one of the exercises of holi¬ 
ness. God predestinated them according to the 
good pleasure of his will, and to the praise of 
the glory of his grace. And at the proper time, 
in fulfillment of this gracious purpose, he quick¬ 
ened them and blessed them with all spiritual 
blessings. 

This doctrine is distinctly taught by the same 
Apostle in the Second Epistle to the Thessalo- 
nians, where, speaking of the great apostacy, he 
says:—“But we are bound to give thanks always 
to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, 
because God hath from the beginning chosen 
you to salvation, through sanctification of the 
Spirit, and belief of the truth: whereunto he 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


203 


called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the 
glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”* We have 
here the end to which they were chosen, viz: sal¬ 
vation; the means by which this end was to be 
effected, viz: sanctification of the Spirit and be¬ 
lief of the truth; the period when they were 
chosen, viz: from the beginning, or from eterni¬ 
ty; and the fulfillment of the purpose in their 
effectual calling to the obtaining of the glory 
of Christ. 

Mr. Watson strangely affirms, that “the call¬ 
ing of the members of this Church is not repre¬ 
sented by the apostle as the effect of their having 
been chosen, but on the contrary, their election 
is spoken of as the effect of ‘the sanctification 
of the Spirit and belief of the truth.’ ” But 
look carefully at the apostle’s language. He 
says God had chosen them to salvation. Did he 
choose them because they had been sanctified 
by the Spirit, and had believed the truth? No; 
for, in the first place, the sanctification of the 
Spirit is an important part of the salvation to 
which they were chosen. Salvation or deliver¬ 
ance from sin is effected by the work of the 
| Spirit on the heart. And, secondly, the phrase 


*Ch. 2: 13, 14. 






204 GOD sovereign and man free. 


“through sanctification of the Spirit,” does not 
mean on account of the sanctification of the 
Spirit. Salvation is the thing, the end, to which 
they were chosen; and this end was to be ac¬ 
complished through or by means of sanctifica¬ 
tion of the Spirit and belief of the truth. 

Dr. Clarke does not hold, as does Mr. Watson, 
that these Christians were chosen because they 
were sanctified; but he refers the whole passage 
to the purpose of God to call the Gentiles to the 
privileges of the gospel. He paraphrases the 
apostle’s language thus:—“In your calling , God 
has shown the purpose that he had formed from 
the beginning, to call the Gentiles to the same 
privileges with the Jews,” etc. But, unfortu¬ 
nately for this exposition, the apostle says not a 
word in the whole of the connection, concerning 
Jews and Gentiles. He predicts the great Ro¬ 
man apostacy, which was to occur in the Church, 
and whilst he speaks of the “strong delusion” 
which would be sent upon many, he gives thanks 
that God had from the beginning chosen the 
Thessalonian Christians to a better end, even to 
salvation, and had appointed the means neces¬ 
sary to that end. 

Very similar to this passage, is the language 
of Peter, addressed to the strangers scattered 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


205 


throughout Pontus, etc.:—“Elect according to 
the foreknowledge of God the Father, through 
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” They 
w r ere elected, not because God foresaw that they 
would obey, nor because they had obeyed, but 
unto obedience, in order that they might obey. 
They were elected unto obedience, just as they 
were elected unto the sprinkling of the blood of 
Christ, that is, to the enjoyment of the blessings 
of the atonement. The election of God is first, 
the efficacious calling consequent upon the elec¬ 
tion, and obedience the effect of this calling. 

We are thus conducted to another class of 
Scriptures which speak of what the Westminster 
Confession terms “effectual calling” Paul writ¬ 
ing to the Corinthians, uses the following lan¬ 
guage:—“For the Jews require a sign, and 
the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach 
Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, 
and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto 
them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, 
Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of 
God.”* Observe, the call of the gospel was 
given indiscriminately to Jews and Greeks; the 


18 


* 1 Cor. 1: 22-24. 



206 GOD sovereign and man free. 


ape sties delivered to all the same message, and 
extended to all the same invitation. Of this call 
the Saviour speaks, when he says:—“Many are 
called, but few chosen.” Both Jews and Greeks 
rejected the gospel message, though on very dif¬ 
ferent grounds. The former desired to see a sign 
from heaven, before they would believe; and the 
latter were displeased with the simplicity of the 
gospel,—seeing in it nothing of the intricate and 
obscure speculations of the Grecian philosophy, 
which they mistook for wisdom. The depravity 
of the human heart leads all men, when left to 
themselves, to reject the gospel; though they 
justify themselves by very different excuses. 

But although the general disposition of both 
Jews and Greeks was to reject the gospel, yet 
to some, both Jews and Greeks, it was the power 
of God and the wisdom of God. They saw in it 
a wisdom far above the wisdom of men, and felt 
in its doctrines a power to purify and elevate, 
which only God can exert. These the apostle 
describes as “them ivliich are called .” They evi¬ 
dently had a peculiar call, an effectual call; for 
it resulted in their conversion to Christ. What 
was this call? It was not the preaching of the 
gospel, for others equally with them had this 
call. It was evidently, then, that influence of 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


207 


the Holy Spirit by which they were changed in 
heart, and made willing to receive Christ as their 
Saviour. Of this calling Peter speaks, when he 
teaches Christians to shew forth “the praises of 
him who hath called them out of darkness into 
his marvellous light,”* Of this calling Paul 
writes in the Epistle to the Romans:—“For 
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate 
to be conformed to the image of his Son, that 
he might be the first-born among many breth¬ 
ren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them 
he also called: and whom he called, them he also 
justified: and whom he justified, them he also 
glorified. ”f The apostle is here proving, that 
“all things work together for good to them that 
love God, to them who are the called according 
to his purpose;” and he proves it by showing that 
God originally purposed to save them, and that 
he is now, in his providence and by his grace, 
carrying out this purpose. Let us note the 
several steps presented in the text. The per¬ 
sons spoken of wer e foreknown. Were they fore¬ 
known as believer si Did God foresee that they 
would believe and receive the gospel, and was his 
predestination of them founded upon such fore- 


* 1 Pet. 2: 9. 


f Rom. 8: 29, 30. 



208 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

knowledge? Mr. Watson answers these ques¬ 
tions affirmatively; we, for several clear reasons, 
answer them in the negative. First, they were 
first foreknown and predestinated, and were call¬ 
ed because thus foreknown; but according to 
Arminianism, all receive the same call, and of 
course that call is not based on a foreknowledge 
of faith. Secondly, the apostle says, “whom he 
called, them [the same individuals] he justified, 
and whom he justified, them he also glorified;” 
but according to Arminianism, many who receive 
this call reject it, and consequently are not jus¬ 
tified, much less glorified. The apostle teaches, 
that all who receive this call, are justified and 
glorified; but Arminianism teaches, that much 
the larger portion are never justified at all. 
Thirdly, they are predestinated to be conformed 
to the. image of God, not predestinated because 
God foresaw that they would be conformed. And, 
fourthly, no one, as we have already proved, ever 
exercises true faith, until he is regenerated. 
Consequently, God could foreknow them as be¬ 
lievers, only because he purposed to renew their 
hearts and dispose them to receive Christ. It 
is worthy of remark, that Dr. Clarke, who was 
not a less zealous Arminian than Mr. Watson, 
differs materially from him in explaining the 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


209 


word foreknow. He says:—“To foreknow, here 
signifies to design before , or at the first forming 
oi the scheme: to bestow the favor and privilege 
of being God’s people upon any set of men, (as 
Rom. xi. 2.) This is the foundation , or first step 
of our salvation; namely, the purpose and grace 
of God , which was given us in Christ Jesus before 
the world began, (2 Tim. i. 9.) Then, he knew 
or favored us, for in this sense the word to know 
is taken in a great variety of places, both in the 
Old and New Testaments. # * When God 

knew us at the forming of the gospel scheme, 
or when he intended to bestow on us the privi¬ 
lege of being his people, he then destinated or 
designed us to be conformed to the imnge of his 
Son: and as he destinated or determined us then 
to this very high honor and happiness, he pre¬ 
destinated , foreordained or predetermined us to 
it.” We are willing to take this general expo¬ 
sition of the words foreknozv and predestinate . 
God, first, foreknew or designed to favor the 
persons. Then, secondly, he predestinated them 
to holiness , or predetermined to sanctify them; 
for God is the author of sanctification. Then, 
thirdly, he, in accordance with his foreknowledge 
and purpose, called them. And it is clear that 
this call was effectual, because the same persons 


210 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

who received the call were justified, as they could 
not be unless they believed. And, fourth, the 
same persons were glorified. Thus the apostle 
gives the general manner of the Divine proceed- 
ure in the salvation of men. They are chosen, 
called, justified, glorified. And because God is 
now carrying out his eternal purpose to save 
them, we know, as the apostle argues, that all 
things work together for their good. Having 
determined the end , God is employing the best 
means and agencies for its accomplishment. 
Those means and agencies are his Word, his Or¬ 
dinances, his Providences, and his Spirit. 

Many other passages of Scripture might be 
adduced in confirmation of the doctrine of Elec¬ 
tion, but the evidence already furnished is amply 
sufficient to satisfy the unprejudiced mind. 
There is no part of Scripture, however plain the 
language, upon which an ingenious writer may 
not put a plausible interpretation contrary to its 
obvious import; but we ask the candid reader 
to determine for himself, in the fear of God, 
whether the interpretations we have given of the 
passages quoted is not more in accordance with 
the obvious import of the language of Inspira¬ 
tion, than the different and contradictory inter¬ 
pretations of Arminians, who, whilst they agree 


ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 


211 


in asserting that those passages do not teach 
Election, cannot agree what they do teach. Do 
not these efforts to fix upon those passages a 
sense consistent with Arminianism, look more 
like a defence of their Creed against the Bible, 
than an impartial exposition of its language? 


CHAPTER VI. 


PRACTICAL BEARINGS OF THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE 
FOREORDINATION. 

The doctrine of Divine foreordination is not a 
mere metaphysical dogma without practical bear¬ 
ing. It has ever been associated with the great 
doctrines of the Cross, and its practical effects 
have been decided and happy. 

1. It gives exalted and just views of the char¬ 
acter of God. It presents him as, in his infinite 
wisdom, fixing upon the noblest ends and adopt¬ 
ing the best means for their accomplishment. 
He purposed to glorify his name in the highest 
degree by the redemption of an innumerable 
multitude of men. For this purpose he created 
the world and formed man. His all-wise plans 
were not frustrated by the temptation and fall 
of man, nor will they fail through the wicked¬ 
ness of men. The fall he chose, for wise reasons, 
to permit; and surely the wrath of man shall 
praise him: the remainder of wrath he will re¬ 
strain, (Psalm lxxvi. 10.) “The Lord reigneth; 
let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of Isles 
be glad thereof;” “The Lord reigneth; let the 


PRACTICAL BEARINGS. 


2J3 


people tremble.” “He doeth according to his 
will in the army of heaven, and among the in¬ 
habitants of the earth: and none can stay his 
hand, or say unto him, what doest thou ?” “ For 

the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall 
disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and 
who shall turn it back?” His purposes origin¬ 
ated in eternity, and are carried forward without 
change to eternity. They extend to all his 
works, and control all events. He “worketh all 
things after the counsel of his will.” All are 
made to contribute in one way or another to the 
great end, and yet in no single instance is the 
free agency of his rational creatures impaired. 
God is sovereign, and man is free. “Great is 
the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and his 
greatness is unsearchable.” 

2. This doctrine gives the greatest encourage¬ 
ment to virtue. It teaches* that the path of 
duty is in all cases the path of safety and of 
happiness. Not only has God established a gen¬ 
eral connection between sin and misery, and be¬ 
tween holiness and happiness; but his providence 
and grace combine to make the path of true vir¬ 
tue the way to real prosperity and lasting bless¬ 
edness. The providence of God is over all his 
works,—especially over his people; and in his 


214 GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

providence God is simply executing his eternal 
purposes. He is conducting his people along 
the path his infinite wisdom has chosen for them, 
and therefore “all things work together for good 
to them that love God, to them who are the 
called according to his purpose.” He can re¬ 
strain, direct and overrule the actions of wicked 
men without interfering with their tree agency. 
The believer may, therefore, adopt the language 
of the Psalmist, and say:—“What time I am 
afraid, I will trust in thee. In God I will praise 
his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not 
fear what flesh can do unto me.”* But if, as 
Arminianism teaches, God cannot control the 
passions and direct the conduct of men without 
destroying their free agency, where is there safety 
for the righteous? Indeed, how can there be a 
particular providence, if the doctrine of Divine 
foreordination is not true? If there be a wise 
providence over men, it must be directed to some 
worthy end or ends,—it must be the carrying 
out of plans or purposes,—the execution of wise 
designs. But Arminians object, that such pur¬ 
poses destroy man’s free agency and make God 
the author of sin. Then there can be no par- 


*Ps. 56: 3,4. 



PRACTICAL BEARINGS. 


215 


ticular providence, at least so far as the passions 
and actions of men are concerned in passing 
events. Where, then, we again ask, is the ground 
of safety to the righteous? 

3. The tendency of this doctrine is to fill the 
hearts of Christians with humility and with grati¬ 
tude. By nature all men, according to this 
doctrine, are totally depraved and under just 
condemnation. By practice they are rebels, 
justly exposed to the wrath of God. God was 
under no obligation to offer them salvation. 
The mission of Christ, therefore, was purely gra¬ 
cious, and his work of obedience and suffering a 
purely gracious work. “God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son.” The 
atonement of Christ is to be regarded as an 
amazing exhibition of love and of grace toward 
those who deserved to perish. 

“ 0 for this love let rocks and hills 
Their lasting silence break, 

And all harmonious human tongues 
The Saviour’s praises speak.” 

But Arminianism teaches, that it would have 
been unjust that Adam’s posterity should have 
perished without the offer of salvation. God was, 
therefore, it would seem, under some obligation 
to provide a Saviour or a method of deliverance. 



216 GOD sovereign and man free. 


The mission and the work of Christ consequent¬ 
ly cannot be regarded as purely gracious. It is, 
at least in part, a matter of justice to the unfor¬ 
tunate race of man. Now it is impossible that 
this view of the subject should beget either hu¬ 
mility or gratitude. If men view their original 
sin as merely their misfortune , they will scarcely 
consider it a cause of deep humility of soul; and 
so far as they regard the work of Christ as a 
work of justice to them, they will not be likely 
to feel very grateful for it. The gratitude of 
Christians toward their Redeemer will be propor¬ 
tioned to their views of their ill desert. So our 
Saviour teaches in the parable of the two debtors, 
(Luke vii. 40,)—by which he accounted for the 
extraordinary love of the woman, who was a sin¬ 
ner, and who washed his feet with her tears and 
wiped them with the hairs of her head:—Where¬ 
fore, I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, 
are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom 
little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” 

Again, according to the doctrine of Divine 
foreordination, God is the author of all that is 
pure in the Christian’s heart. He saw him “ dead 
in trespasses and sins.” He purposed to renew 
his hoart, not because of anything in the sinner 
moving him thereto, nor because of any fore- 


PRACTICAL BEARINGS. 


217 


seen co-operation on his part, but simply of his 
sovereign mercy. So that the most devoted 
Christian, comparing his present condition and 
character with his former condition and charac¬ 
ter, must say emphatically with Paul:—“By the 
grace of God I am what I am.” And of all his 
good works he must say:—“I labored; yet not 
I, but the grace of God which was with me.” 

But Arminianism rejects the doctrine of “ef¬ 
fectual calling .” God gave to A. and B. the 
same call. A. obeyed the call and came to 
Christ, and B. refused. Now, if Paul should ask 
A., as he asked the Corinthian believers, “Who 
maketh thee to differ from another? and what 
hast thou that thou didst not receive?” he might 
answer, ‘I make myself to differ from B. He 
had the same call that I had. He chose to re¬ 
ject it; I chose to accept it. I have, therefore, 
something which I did not receive.’ And in¬ 
deed upon this thing wdrich he did not receive, 
his salvation depended. It is impossible that 
this view of the subject can produce humility so 
deep, or such a degree of gratitude, as that 
which ascribes the whole work to the Holy Spirit. 
Only he who believes the doctrine we are de¬ 
fending, can adopt the Scriptural sentiment of 
those beautiful verses of Watts: 


19 


218 GOD sovereign and man free. 


“ Why was I made to hear thy voice. 

And enter while there’s room, 

When thousands make a wretched choice, 

And rather starve than come? 

’T was the same love that spread the feast, 

That sweetly forced us in; 

Else we had still refused to taste, 

And perished in our sin.” 

This doctrine greatly exalts the grace of God, 
whilst it deeply humbles the believer, and fills 
his heart with inexpressible gratitude. It pro¬ 
claims u Glory to God in the highest, and on 
earth peace and good will to men.” It will swell 
the sweet notes in heaven, when the head-stone 
of the spiritual temple shall be brought forth 
with shoutings of “ Grace, Grace unto it.” 

And indeed this very feature of the doctrine 
marks it as Divine. Examine all the errors that 
have ever marred the beauty and destroyed the 
moral power of the Church of Christ, and you 
will find in them all one great characteristic fea¬ 
ture, viz: they diminish the guilt of man , and 
thus diminish their indebtedness to divine grace. 
But this doctrine humbles man in the very dust, 
as deserving of eternal misery, and exalts in the 
highest degree “the grace of God that bringeth 
salvation.” Its language is:—“Not unto us, 0 
Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory. 


PRACTICAL BEARINGS. 


219 


for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.”* Hu¬ 
man nature has ever exalted itself, but this doc¬ 
trine humbles human nature and exalts the grace 
of God. It takes from man all merit, and gives 
all the glory of his salvation to God. Need we 
better evidence that this doctrine is not of man, 
but of God? 

Nor is it wonderful, we may remark, that 
the doctrine of Divine foreordination has never 
been associated with fundamental error, and 
that the first step of those who wander from 
the cross, is the abandonment of it. Nor is 
it strange, that the further they wander from 
the truth, the more malignant their opposi¬ 
tion to it. If man is in the condition it 
represents him, none but a Divine Saviour 
can deliver him, and a vicarious atonement is 
absolutely necessary to his deliverance. Such 
being the condition of man, the special influ¬ 
ence of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary 
to his sanctification; and without such influ¬ 
ence, there could be no such thing as “ effec¬ 
tual calling .” Whilst, therefore, this doctrine 
promotes the deepest humility and fills the heart 
with gratitude, it binds the soul to the Cross of 


*Ps. 115: l. 



220 G0D SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 

Christ and suffers it not to reject any one of the 
great doctrines of the cross. 

4. This doctrine secures the final perseverance 
of the saints. By the perseverance of the saints, 
we do not mean, as we are strangely misrepre¬ 
sented, that Christians, who are God’s elect, will 
be saved even though they turn and commit in¬ 
iquity. On the contrary, we hold that they will 
not turn and commit iniquity, but will persevere 
in the service of God. Or, in the beautiful lan¬ 
guage of Job:—“The righteous also shall hold 
on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall 
be stronger and stronger.”* We do not assert, 
that the righteous never bade slide, or become 
cold in the service of God, but only that they 
never apostatize. As God says of the seed of 
Christ:—“If his children forsake my law, and 
walk not in my judgments; if they break my 
statutes, and keep not my commandments; then 
will I visit their transgression with the rod, and 
their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my 
loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, 
nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.”*)* God the 
Father has made a covenant with the Son, in 
which he promised that he should see of the 


*Ch. 17: 9. 


|Ps. 89: 30-33. 



PRACTICAL BEARINGS. 


221 


travail of his soul and be satisfied. Now if his 
children prove unfaithful and backslide, he will 
by chastisements bring them back to the path 
of duty, and thus will not suffer his promise to 
the Son to fail. Nor do we believe, that the 
saints will persevere in their own strength; but 
with Paul we are “confident of this very thing, 
that he which hath begun a good work in them, 
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.”* 
We believe that he hath given unto them eter¬ 
nal life, “and they shall never perish, neither 
shall any pluck them out of his hand;” that 
the Father who gave them to Christ, is greater 
than all, and no man is able to pluck them out 
of his hand.f 

This soul-cheering doctrine is confirmed by 
the doctrine of Divine foreordination. Before 
the foundation of the w r orld God purposed to 
save his people through Christ, and he appointed 
and arranged all the means necessary to this end. 
In fulfillment of this purpose God has called 
them into his kingdom, and is now carrying for¬ 
ward his work of grace. And as Paul conclu¬ 
sively argues:—“If when we were enemies, we 
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, 


* Phil. 1: 6. 
19 * 


\ John 10: 28, 29. 



222 


GOD SOVEREIGN AND MAN FREE. 


much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved 
by his life.”* That is, if, when we were in an 
unconverted state and full of enmity to God, he, 
in fulfillment of his eternal purpose, brought us 
into a state of reconciliation; much more, now 
that we are reconciled and have become his chil¬ 
dren, will he finish the work he has begun. Paul 
knew that all things work together for good to 
the people of God, because they are “the called 
according to his purpose He foreknew, pre¬ 
destinated, called and justified them; and cer¬ 
tainly he will glorify them. 

These two doctrines have rarely been separated 
in any creed, and none who believe the doctrine 
of Divine foreordination, doubt the truth of the 
doctrine of the saints’ perseverance. 

5. The doctrine of Divine foreordination offers 
the greatest encouragement to efforts to build 
up the Church of Christ in the world. Men are 
totally depraved. Their hearts are fully set in 
them to do evil. Such is their love of sin, such 
their pride, such their enmity to God, that all 
the motives presented in the gospel, however 
eloquently set forth, fail to win them to Christ, 
“Paul planteth: Apollos watereth;” but unless 


* Rom. 5: 10. 



PRACTICAL BEARINGS. 


223 


God give the increase, their labors are in vain. 
But if the doctrine of Divine foreordination is 
true, then God can effectually call men into his 
kingdom; and he has purposed to renew and 
save a multitude that no man can number. 
Christians and Christian ministers feel that their 
success in building up the Kingdom of Christ, 
depends not upon sinful men, but upon the effec¬ 
tual working of divine grace. They can pray 
in faith, “Thy kingdom come;” for God has pur¬ 
posed that it shall come. “But as truly as I 
live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory 
of the Lord.”* Daniel was encouraged to pray 
for the return of the Jews from the Babylonish 
captivity, when he “understood by books the 
number of the years whereof the word of the 
Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he 
would accomplish seventy years in the desola¬ 
tions of Jerusalem ”t Paul was greatly encour¬ 
aged to preach the gospel in Corinth, when the 
Lord said to him:—“Be not afraid, but speak, 
and hold not thy peace; for I am with thee, and 
no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have 
much people in this city.”t And the faithful 
ministers of Christ, in all ages, have been cheered 


* Nunn. 14: 21. 


\ Dan. 9: 1-3. } Acts 18: 9 ; 10. 





224 GOD sovereign and man free. 


in their difficult work, by the assurance that 
God has a great multitude of people in the 
world, and that all whom he has given to Christ, 
will come to him. 

Does any one ask why we pray and labor for 
results which are decreed of God? Why, we ask, 
did Daniel the prophet earnestly pray with fast¬ 
ing for the restoration of the Jews, when Jere¬ 
miah had long before declared the purpose of 
God to restore them at the expiration of the 
seventy years? And why should Christians 
pray and labor for the conversion of the world, 
since God has declared his purpose to fill the 
world with his glory? The truth is, our prayers 
are not designed to change the purposes of God, 
nor to induce him to form new purposes; neither 
are our labors designed to bring to pass events 
God has not purposed. God has appointed both 
ends and means , and it is the duty and the wis¬ 
dom of his people to employ the means and con¬ 
fidently anticipate the results. 

The doctrine of Divine foreordination may be 
misrepresented, and it may be abused; and so 
may the doctrine of Justification by Grace. 
But they who misrepresent and abuse it, are ac¬ 
countable for their conduct. The Christian, 
when he rightly understands it, will rejoice in it. 






PRACTICAL BEARINGS, 225 

All men are by nature opposed to the gospel; 
and if all were left to themselves, none would be 
saved. All who have been or who will be saved, 
owe their salvation to the purpose of God to bring 
them under the means of grace and to renew 
and sanctify their hearts; and they who are lost, 
will owe their ruin to ilieir sin. Left to their 
choice, they rejected the gospel and lived in sin. 
They, therefore, will have no excuse to offer, 
and no charge to allege against the Divine con¬ 
duct. This doctrine saves all that are saved, 
and injures none. It takes multitudes to heaven 
who would have perished; whilst those who are 
lost, perish on account of their sin. 


THE END. 














































































































































V 



































































JOHN 1). THORPE, 

PHRENOLOGY EXAMINED, 

And shown to be inconsistent with the principles of Physiology, 
Mental and Moral Science, and the Doctrines of Christianity. 

-ALSO- 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS OF MESMERISM; 

BY N. L. RICE, D. D. 


Duodecimo, 318 pp. in Cloth or Sheep, - - -.Si.00 

Mail Edition, in Flexible cloth, --- - - -.1.00 


-HE WILL FURNISH TO ORDER- 

CAMPBELL AND RICE’S DEBATE ON BAPTISM, 

In Muslin, octavo, $1.00 

Sheep, 1.25 

Sheep, extra, 1.50 

RICE AND PINGREE’S DEBATE ON UNIVERSALISM, 

12mo. cloth, $1.00 

RICE AND BLANCHARD’S DEBATE ON SLAVERY, 

12mo. cloth, $1.00 

ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY, by N. L. Rice, D.D. 

12mo. cloth with portrait, $1.00 

-HE PUBLISHES ALSO- 

FLEMING’S APOCALYPTICAL KEY, a discourse on the 
Rise and Fall of Anti-Christ, or the pouring out of the Vials in 
the Sixteenth Chapter of Revelatiors, delivered in London, A. 
D. 1701; 12mo. 176 pp. In Muslin 40c, Paper 25c. 




JOHN D. THORPE, 

PUBLISHER, BOOKSELLER & STATIONER, 

3X T o. 12, 111cst Jourtl) Street, 

CINCINNATI; 

Will give particular attention to filling orders for Books in the 
various departments of Literature and Science. 

ET Orders for Libraries in whole or in part, will be selected 
with care. 

Having all the publications of the Presbyterian Board,—the 
publications of Robert Carter & Brothers,— with a wide range 
of Standard books gathered from various sources; and having 
facilities for obtaining from other publishers, East and West, 
any book on their catalogues; he solicits orders from Ministers, 
officers of Sabbath-schools, and others. 

STATIONERY. 

Cap Paper,—English, French and American, various qualities; 
Post “ Quarto, Commercial and Packet, “ *< 

Note “ English, French and American, a great variety, some 
very rich; 

Envelopes to malch the several kinds of Post and Note papers; 
Drawing Paper, Bristol Boards, Fine English Tissue Papers; 
Gold and Steel Pens, in variety from the best makers; 
Ink-stands, all kinds; Sand and Wafer Boxes; 

Wax, Wafers, Mottoes. Seals and Stamps, Rubber; 

Pencils,—Writing and Drawing, all numbers and letters; 

Inks,—Black, Blue, Red and Carmine; 

Indelible Ink; India Ink, the best; 

Portfolios, some very fine; Visiting Cards, fine; 

Rodgers’s Fine Knives,—one, two, three and four blades; 
Paper Folders; 

Porte-monies, Wallets, Pocket-books, Note-books, etc. etc. 

0=* tie is constantly receiving additions of new and choice 
Stationery, of the latest styles and importations, to which he 
mvites attention. 

















































* 


























V * 1 

o cS ^ 

^ r $. ^ s ^ " / * „ S ' 




/ s' s A° <r ' / * * s s a^ 

** <f,'^*,%, cf^UL*, 

: o> h * ° ww." .v ^ 


7 c> 


€ 7 * 7 ^. 




° ^p- 4 * 


TL 

+ ^ \ \ 

''/\.., V s ^ 

0° «, s Vrw 


y '' l * <, s s 

*, ^.r!t 


A <3* 



., — 's’ A>’ ^ * / 7* s S - ^ 

* * ^ < ^<$A ^ " C> s S * * > /, G° V 7 ' X/ 

\ %, <$ *'<ste\ *s»\ ^ s 







CO 

• 1 ^-f [- o ,% % ° r •*7<,.., %'°* 1 * 7,-»/ 

o cb -* 

* 




^ °<« 


, x ■*> " 0 ^ y ° 

v * v *° /■ 

a. 

- ° 



v \ ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
‘sfj s ^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

t 7,7 * ' 


Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 


<7 ^ - 

X? y ^7 *> 

y xy y ^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 


* * 


7 , 0 /' *‘ s \o^ ,S** r 


- <S 

/, "VO 


111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 


























V 


\ * o 


V * 0 r 'U 




^ ' V * 1 0 /• ^ 

<1 . *. y-j o* * O 

c ^cP_ y\V ' AWM///) ° 



1 z y///fl^t\\\'V __ 4 Z 

o5 o 

^ ^ ^ 

V'- o-, %'°’^ A-». O V 0 ' k ' 

** .m\ % > % <v 



z: 


<^ s ^ 
* ^V ^ 



■oS 0 <s ° 

LV * ^ ^ j -(/ 

» ■* ^ • 0 * y 



*%- \ywrs ^ v- \ymrs .<? 

1 , <s, ' * * ' 'cF\s * * t, <£, * * '' (jF s' * * '* ^ 

* A '-. \o< » 

.- ^ ^ IW: & • 

0 * *■ * > ^ * o A v * Y * 0 /- ^2- 

O ^<p y ,- y, c o 




c3 ^ ; 



n ^ \^>' . -O, 

V »" *",. *% 



• %. 




Vt- 




o cb -* 

* <& % 

s' Jj* . v <.". o'■# y. * tT.'s '' a g 

xF s'*”'* <£, ,o- s'"^^ ,co 

<* #zsmn*> * z <*- 

r- *fV fVC 


/ . ^ 

'' <f> . Or 

‘ ”, ^V (F 

^ | 



", ^ 

-_ : 

y / ; ..,\- k * <£-.v*; 

C ^ 





s A° ^ v / * * S s A° < 

rv^ w ^ > v<k /-O v . s ^ ^ a . * 





















































































